by Mark C. Chavez
In spite of requests from 15 ELCA synods and a significant majority of ELCA bishops asking for a two-thirds majority vote, the ELCA Church Council voted to stick with its November decision to propose rules of procedure for the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly that would require only a simple majority vote on resolutions about changes in church teaching and policy to allow practicing homosexuals to serve as ELCA ministers. The Church Council met March 27-30 in Chicago.
The council's Legal and Constitutional Committee presented a proposed rule for the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly that was nearly identical to the rule it had recommended in November. The Church Council had voted 19-10 to delete the two-thirds majority requirement at its November meeting. In presenting the rule at the March meeting, the committee made no recommendation for approval or disapproval. Ten council members voted for the two-thirds majority rule for the ministry policy resolutions, 21 opposed it and two abstained in the Saturday, March 28, vote.
In recent weeks, 15 ELCA Synod Councils had asked the Church Council to propose a two-thirds majority rule on all the sexuality matters to be considered by the Churchwide Assembly. Three Synod Councils had supported a simple majority rule.
The ELCA Conference of Bishops voted by a two-to-one margin in support of a two-thirds majority rule at their meeting in early March. Because it was a closed session, the ELCA had not reported the bishops' vote. However, when a council member requested that the council hear the Conference of Bishops' advice on this matter, the bishops' views were made public.
Some council members said that if they changed their minds on the rule, it might look like the council was succumbing to pressure from "a few synods."
One member suggested that perhaps all of the other synods agreed with the simple majority rule.
Some council members also said that by making the decision in November -- prior to the release of the task force report -- their decision was neutral with respect to the content of the task force report. If they changed their minds now, it might look like they were commenting on the content of the task force report.
The 2009 Churchwide Assembly will adopt its rules of procedure at its first session and could amend the rules to reinstate the two-thirds majority requirement for changes in ministry standards.
ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson set the tone for all of the council's discussions with his report at the start of the meeting on March 28. He said, "We are at the intersection of fear and hope," and went on to say that the council and the ELCA should not let fear keep them from doing what they ought to do and be who they ought to be. He urged them to move forward boldly in hope.
Sunday, March 29, the council dealt with the proposed social statement on human sexuality and the ministry policies resolutions from the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Human Sexuality.
The Rev. Steve Loy, chair of the council's Program and Services Committee, which had reviewed the proposed social statement, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, before the meeting, said that the committee considered the proposed social statement to be credible and therefore recommended that the Church Council pass it along to the Churchwide Assembly with minimal changes.
When the Churchwide staff and leaders presented the social statement to the Church Council for consideration, they praised the task force for its work.
The Rev. Roger Thompson, chair of the Church in Society Program Committee, said the task force accurately reflected the diversity of views in the ELCA and that the social statement is a "very admirable document."
The Rev. Roger Willer, director of the ELCA Department of Studies, Church in Society, reported that the task force took seriously the feedback to the 2008 Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality and made significant revisions in the proposed statement including: writing a shorter statement (1,000 words less); placing sexual ethics within the doctrine of creation; clarifying the role of the Law; using less technical language; locating sexuality in God's left-handed ruling; and noting that disagreements on sexual ethics are not matters in which salvation is at stake.
The Church Council unanimously approved amendments to the proposed social statement, which the task force regarded as friendly amendments that further the intent of the social statement. Then the council voted by a strong majority to "transmit" the social statement to the Churchwide Assembly as amended.
The Church Council also voted to transmit implementing resolutions related to the proposed statement, with some amendments, to the Churchwide Assembly. Some council members opposed this action.
The amended social statement and implementing resolutions as they will be presented to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly will be available online at www.elca.org/faithfuljourney April 2.
The Church Council then took up the Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies resolutions from the task force. The Rev. Rebecca Larson, head of the Church in Society Unit said that, contrary to some news reports, the ELCA is not proposing a change in rostering policies but proposing a process by which the ELCA will decide if it wants to consider a change in policies.
The task force recommended a series of four resolutions that would allow ELCA pastors and other rostered leaders to be in same-sex sexual relationships.
The Rev. Peter Strommen, chair of the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality, repeated that the task force had not proposed what the ELCA ought to do, but rather a process for how to proceed when there is no consensus on the sexuality issues.
The Rev. Stan Olson, head of the Vocation and Education unit, said that "structured flexibility" is a shorthand way to refer to what already exists in the ELCA candidacy process. He said that "structured flexibility" is not a proposal for local option because the ELCA does not currently have a local option. If the ELCA already had a local option then it would be accurate to say the task force recommendation is a proposal for local option.
Later in the meeting, Olson clarified that Resolution #4 would allow for different practices among ELCA synods and congregations.
The Church Council voted overwhelmingly to transmit Resolutions #1 and #2 to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.
Resolution #1 asks the ELCA to "commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships." The council amended this proposal to delete a reference to synods.
Resolution #2 asks "that the ELCA commit itself to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church."
The Church Council also voted overwhelmingly to transmit Resolutions #3 and #4, but after much more discussion.
Resolution #3 states that "in the implementation of these resolutions, the ELCA commits itself to bear one another's burdens, love the neighbor, and respect the bound consciences of all."
Questions were raised about the definition of "bound conscience" -- prominent in the third resolution. Is it a proper definition? Is it a new definition?
Pastor Willer said that the Church in Society Unit is preparing a document that will show that the definition of "bound conscience" used by the task force is long-standing in Lutheran and Christian teaching. He said it hasn't been used in recent years, which is why it appears to be new. Willer asserted that Martin Luther understood "bound conscience" to apply not only to central matters of salvation but also to other matters, and that Luther understood it to mean the ability to judge moral doctrine. The document is to be available later this month.
Resolution #4 details the policy changes necessary to current ELCA teaching and policy to enact the previous resolutions.
After much discussion, Resolution #4 was substantially amended and shortened. One council member said that the amendments are more transparent in that they make it clear that the resolution allows a congregation to introduce a practice in a synod that might otherwise not accept the practice.
Throughout all of the discussions on the sexuality issues, only a few people spoke in opposition to the content of the task force documents.
The Church Council made its decisions on the sexuality documents after hearing grim news about the financial situation of the ELCA and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada.
Canadian Bishop Susan Johnson was first to report its grim financial situation. She has had to cut her staff by 30 percent. There are now only 10 full-time employees in the ELCIC national office. She is trying to run the office with one-third the real funds they had in 1986. Individual income in Canada has kept pace with inflation, but giving to congregations and giving to synods and Churchwide has not. She believes they will need to reduce the number of synods or to downsize them. "We're running out of runway," Johnson said. She added they still have some time to make choices, but they soon won't.
When the ELCA's financial condition was reported, the Rev. Wyvetta Bullock, the Executive for Administration, said that the ELCA is close to being on the edge like the Canadian church.
The ELCA has had a significant decline in mission support from synods thus far this year. January 2009 was the second lowest January in the ELCA's history, February was down, and March is down. In fiscal year 2008 the Churchwide unit received 95.8 percent of planned mission support. The estimate is for only 93 percent in 2009. The ELCA treasurer reported that factoring for inflation, mission support is down 42 percent from 1989.
Because of the revised income estimates, 35.5 Churchwide staff positions were eliminated in recent weeks -- 23.5 occupied staff positions and 12 vacant positions. All Churchwide units have made reductions, a partial hiring freeze is in place, and salaries for the highest pay grades will be reduced by 3 percent.
In another action the Church Council approved, with no discussion, the ELCA bishops' response to the 2007 Churchwide Assembly resolution that called for a report from the bishops to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly on their accountability to ELCA policies. The bishops have concluded that no new document is needed for the 2009 assembly because they had been regularly reviewing accountability all along and the current ELCA documents are sufficient.
The Church Council used process observers throughout the meeting to report on the freedom in the meeting for all to express themselves and for all voices to be heard. Ironically, at the very end of the meeting when advisers to the council were making reports, the Rev. Khader N. El-Yateem, chair of the Multicultural Ministries Program Committee informed the council that none of the Arab or Middle Eastern ELCA congregations had participated in the sexuality studies and feedback in the past several years. The leaders of those congregations did not present the sexuality studies and documents in their congregations because it would have been unhelpful and troublesome. He said many other ethnic congregations had also not participated for the same reasons. He warned the Church Council that it does not have the input or participation of many of these congregations.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Thursday, April 02, 2009
News from Sweden
Go to www.scandhouse.org and click the link to read the Bishops' letter from the Mission Province.
Shrimp here, posting on Friday, thinking Cap'n Bill ought to have said a wee bit more. The letter is a response to the Swedish Parliament's approval of "gender neutral" marriage. For some years Sweden has offered legal same-sex unions (and such unions could then be blessed by priests of the [Lutheran] Church of Sweden), but had refrained from calling such unions "marriage."
The Missionsprovinsen ["Mission Province"] is described on Wikipedia as "a second, independent ecclesiastical province within the Church of Sweden . . . founded by members of the 'orthodox opposition' to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate." The province was organized in 2003 and its first Bishop (there are now 3) was consecrated by Lutheran Bishops (in apostolic succession) from Kenya, Belarus, South Africa, and Norway in 2005.
And this becomes suddenly more relevant as the Iowa Supreme Court becomes the latest court to declare that "limiting" marriage to being between a man and a woman is "unconstitutional." Shrimp, of boggled-mind, out.
Shrimp here, posting on Friday, thinking Cap'n Bill ought to have said a wee bit more. The letter is a response to the Swedish Parliament's approval of "gender neutral" marriage. For some years Sweden has offered legal same-sex unions (and such unions could then be blessed by priests of the [Lutheran] Church of Sweden), but had refrained from calling such unions "marriage."
The Missionsprovinsen ["Mission Province"] is described on Wikipedia as "a second, independent ecclesiastical province within the Church of Sweden . . . founded by members of the 'orthodox opposition' to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate." The province was organized in 2003 and its first Bishop (there are now 3) was consecrated by Lutheran Bishops (in apostolic succession) from Kenya, Belarus, South Africa, and Norway in 2005.
And this becomes suddenly more relevant as the Iowa Supreme Court becomes the latest court to declare that "limiting" marriage to being between a man and a woman is "unconstitutional." Shrimp, of boggled-mind, out.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The Dissenters Speak
Statement by Three Dissenting Members of the ELCA Task Force on Human Sexuality
We begin with a word of thanks and gratitude for the opportunity to serve on the ELCA Task Force for Human Sexuality. Even though the three of us often disagreed with the other 27 members and advisors of the task force on traditional biblical interpretation and theological principles, we were treated as the minority voice with great kindness, dignity and respect. Because we firmly believe the current polices of the ELCA, when enforced, are consistent with the biblical witness, Christian moral tradition, and the view of the vast majority of Christians in the world, we refused to sign off on both the social statement and the recommendations and are submitting our dissent. Changing current policies would sever the ELCA from the ecumenical church and the Christian consensus down through the ages. These policies include:
1. People who are homosexual in their orientation must live a celibate lifestyle in order to serve on the roster of the ELCA. (Visions and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline)
2. The 1993 Statement of the ELCA Conference of Bishops states that “there is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship.” However, this statement by ELCA bishops acknowledged that local pastors within their contexts are to “provide pastoral care for all to whom they minister.”
Of critical importance when considering sexuality is the role of God’s commandments—his Law—in the moral ordering of the Christian life. We are convinced that God’s intention for marriage—life-long covenant of fidelity between a man and a woman—established as the First Institute in Genesis 2 and re-affirmed by Jesus in Mark 10:6-9, serves as the center around which all Christian sexual ethics are defined. That original design, echoed throughout scripture and even depicted as the ideal relationship between Jesus and his bride, the Church (Revelation), has been shattered due to human sin (the Fall; see Genesis 3). Because of sin, humans have turned away from God’s intent for their sexual lives, bringing into the world such behaviors as polygamy, divorce, abuse, adultery, homosexual acts, pornography, etc., that no longer reflect the established pattern and ideal set forth by God.
However, by focusing on trust, freedom, and love of neighbor, the social statement, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, strains forward to see what God might be doing anew within the community of faith, particularly in regards to conduct of persons who are homosexual, rather than building on the foundation depicted in the creation accounts of Genesis. The concept of freedom of the Christian, while helpful in our understanding of salvation by faith alone, cannot be the justification for a lifestyle and behavior contrary to the biblical witness and the moral tradition. From Galatians (5:13) we heard often, “For you were called to freedom.” However, we did not hear often enough the next line, “Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the self-indulgence.” By centering on justification by faith, the social statement minimizes the role of the Law in Christian life, contrary to Luther’s exposition of the Christian life in the catechisms, and is at odds with the Lutheran Confessions—Article VI of the Formula of Concord. Justification by faith does not nullify the commands of God; to argue thus is to fall into “antinomianism.”
We contend that the recommendations proposed in Report and Recommendations, which advocate same-gender unions and the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons, have little biblical, historical, or traditional support. The proposed recommendations advocate a radical departure from long-held moral tradition and biblical interpretation, thus distancing us further from the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, evangelical churches and most of the churches in the Protestant mainstream. We believe this is a very serious step that should not be taken by a sharply divided church, particularly without passage by a 2/3rd vote at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.
Because of these theological and pragmatic concerns and because the proposed recommendation threatens to fragment the ELCA as a church by allowing synods and individual congregations to determine their own practice, we felt compelled to draft Dissenting Position #1 (found in the Appendix).
Recommending broad change in the present policies is extremely unwise and unfaithful. There may come a day in which a new consensus in the Church might mandate a change in teaching and practice, as was seen with slavery and Apartheid. Or, over time, this church might find that its resolve grows even stronger to maintain its foundational core beliefs, such as with the authority of scripture (II Timothy 3:16), justification by faith alone (Romans 3:28), and the primacy of Christ (Acts 4:12). Lack of consensus does not mandate change. In fact, it argues for the opposite: maintaining current policies.
Because longstanding biblical interpretation and teachings of the apostolic faith, all of which are shared with ecumenical church partners and partner churches of the Lutheran World Federation, argue against changing the current ELCA policies, we recommend the following to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America:
1. Affirm and uphold the current policies of the ELCA, including both rostering and discipline, as stated in Vision and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline.
2. Affirm the pastoral guidance of the 1993 Statement of the ELCA Conference of Bishops, that “there is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship.” However, pastors within their local contexts are to “provide pastoral care for all to whom they minister.”
The ELCA is a church deeply divided on the issue of human sexuality. The recommendations of the majority of the task force represent a radical change that not only is contrary to Scripture and the apostolic faith, but is one that will splinter our congregations, alienate many of our members, further divide the unity of this church and, we believe, grieve the heart of God. We pray this tragedy will not occur.
Submitted in the name of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
The Rev. Dr. Scott Suskovic; The Rev. Corinne Johnson; The Rev. Carol S. Hendrix
http://lutheranforum.org/sexuality/the-dissenters-speak/
We begin with a word of thanks and gratitude for the opportunity to serve on the ELCA Task Force for Human Sexuality. Even though the three of us often disagreed with the other 27 members and advisors of the task force on traditional biblical interpretation and theological principles, we were treated as the minority voice with great kindness, dignity and respect. Because we firmly believe the current polices of the ELCA, when enforced, are consistent with the biblical witness, Christian moral tradition, and the view of the vast majority of Christians in the world, we refused to sign off on both the social statement and the recommendations and are submitting our dissent. Changing current policies would sever the ELCA from the ecumenical church and the Christian consensus down through the ages. These policies include:
1. People who are homosexual in their orientation must live a celibate lifestyle in order to serve on the roster of the ELCA. (Visions and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline)
2. The 1993 Statement of the ELCA Conference of Bishops states that “there is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship.” However, this statement by ELCA bishops acknowledged that local pastors within their contexts are to “provide pastoral care for all to whom they minister.”
Of critical importance when considering sexuality is the role of God’s commandments—his Law—in the moral ordering of the Christian life. We are convinced that God’s intention for marriage—life-long covenant of fidelity between a man and a woman—established as the First Institute in Genesis 2 and re-affirmed by Jesus in Mark 10:6-9, serves as the center around which all Christian sexual ethics are defined. That original design, echoed throughout scripture and even depicted as the ideal relationship between Jesus and his bride, the Church (Revelation), has been shattered due to human sin (the Fall; see Genesis 3). Because of sin, humans have turned away from God’s intent for their sexual lives, bringing into the world such behaviors as polygamy, divorce, abuse, adultery, homosexual acts, pornography, etc., that no longer reflect the established pattern and ideal set forth by God.
However, by focusing on trust, freedom, and love of neighbor, the social statement, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, strains forward to see what God might be doing anew within the community of faith, particularly in regards to conduct of persons who are homosexual, rather than building on the foundation depicted in the creation accounts of Genesis. The concept of freedom of the Christian, while helpful in our understanding of salvation by faith alone, cannot be the justification for a lifestyle and behavior contrary to the biblical witness and the moral tradition. From Galatians (5:13) we heard often, “For you were called to freedom.” However, we did not hear often enough the next line, “Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the self-indulgence.” By centering on justification by faith, the social statement minimizes the role of the Law in Christian life, contrary to Luther’s exposition of the Christian life in the catechisms, and is at odds with the Lutheran Confessions—Article VI of the Formula of Concord. Justification by faith does not nullify the commands of God; to argue thus is to fall into “antinomianism.”
We contend that the recommendations proposed in Report and Recommendations, which advocate same-gender unions and the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons, have little biblical, historical, or traditional support. The proposed recommendations advocate a radical departure from long-held moral tradition and biblical interpretation, thus distancing us further from the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, evangelical churches and most of the churches in the Protestant mainstream. We believe this is a very serious step that should not be taken by a sharply divided church, particularly without passage by a 2/3rd vote at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.
Because of these theological and pragmatic concerns and because the proposed recommendation threatens to fragment the ELCA as a church by allowing synods and individual congregations to determine their own practice, we felt compelled to draft Dissenting Position #1 (found in the Appendix).
Recommending broad change in the present policies is extremely unwise and unfaithful. There may come a day in which a new consensus in the Church might mandate a change in teaching and practice, as was seen with slavery and Apartheid. Or, over time, this church might find that its resolve grows even stronger to maintain its foundational core beliefs, such as with the authority of scripture (II Timothy 3:16), justification by faith alone (Romans 3:28), and the primacy of Christ (Acts 4:12). Lack of consensus does not mandate change. In fact, it argues for the opposite: maintaining current policies.
Because longstanding biblical interpretation and teachings of the apostolic faith, all of which are shared with ecumenical church partners and partner churches of the Lutheran World Federation, argue against changing the current ELCA policies, we recommend the following to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America:
1. Affirm and uphold the current policies of the ELCA, including both rostering and discipline, as stated in Vision and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline.
2. Affirm the pastoral guidance of the 1993 Statement of the ELCA Conference of Bishops, that “there is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship.” However, pastors within their local contexts are to “provide pastoral care for all to whom they minister.”
The ELCA is a church deeply divided on the issue of human sexuality. The recommendations of the majority of the task force represent a radical change that not only is contrary to Scripture and the apostolic faith, but is one that will splinter our congregations, alienate many of our members, further divide the unity of this church and, we believe, grieve the heart of God. We pray this tragedy will not occur.
Submitted in the name of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
The Rev. Dr. Scott Suskovic; The Rev. Corinne Johnson; The Rev. Carol S. Hendrix
http://lutheranforum.org/sexuality/the-dissenters-speak/
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
If you haven't gotten a resolution in yet, synods are extending deadline because of late release of Task Force docs
WHEREAS, as Lutherans “We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone”[1], and
WHEREAS, many passages in Scripture both speak, and have been consistently throughout history heard to speak, in a plain and unambiguous voice concerning marriage and the exercise of human sexuality, and
WHEREAS, the Scriptures teach very positively of God’s design for marriage as reflected in the words of our Lord Jesus, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh” (Matt. 19:4-6a RSV); and
WHEREAS, a majority of ELCA members, and most Christian churches - including most in the Lutheran World Federation – believe that marriage is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman; and
WHEREAS, the erotic expression of our sexuality is consistently taught and celebrated in Scripture as being rightly ordered to be exercised within the bounds of marriage; and
WHEREAS, Scripture also consistently prohibits any other expression of sexually erotic activity outside the bounds of the marriage; and
WHEREAS, the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly will consider the Report and Recommendations on Ministry Policies from the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality which asks the ELCA to change its teaching and policy to affirm the possibility of same-sex sexual relationships, for pastors and other rostered leaders in the ELCA; and
WHEREAS, a synodical or congregational option on ministry standards would represent a real change in the teaching of our church forcing even those synods and congregations that do not agree with this change implicitly to accept the notion that Scripture is not clear in its teaching about marriage or about homosexual behavior; and
WHEREAS, the interdependent relationship between the churchwide, synod, and congregation expressions of the ELCA requires one Office of Ministry, one roster of pastors, and one set of expectations for pastors and other rostered leaders throughout the ELCA; and
WHEREAS, the ELCA currently expresses its expectations of pastors and other rostered leaders through documents called Vision and Expectation[2]s and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline which are in harmony with the plain sense of Scripture and its overwhelming understanding throughout history; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ____ Assembly thank the members of the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality for their work; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ____ Assembly memorialize the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly to reject the proposals in the Report and Recommendations on Ministry Policies from the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ____ Synod Assembly memorialize the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly to reaffirm the ELCA’s current standards for pastors and other rostered leaders as expressed in Vision and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline.
[1] Formula of Concord, The Epitome, 1. – The Book Of Concord, Edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, Fortress Press.
[2] Especially pertinent are the lines: “Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life. Married ordained ministers are expected to live in fidelity to their spouses, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a marriage relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful. Ordained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships.”
WHEREAS, many passages in Scripture both speak, and have been consistently throughout history heard to speak, in a plain and unambiguous voice concerning marriage and the exercise of human sexuality, and
WHEREAS, the Scriptures teach very positively of God’s design for marriage as reflected in the words of our Lord Jesus, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh” (Matt. 19:4-6a RSV); and
WHEREAS, a majority of ELCA members, and most Christian churches - including most in the Lutheran World Federation – believe that marriage is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman; and
WHEREAS, the erotic expression of our sexuality is consistently taught and celebrated in Scripture as being rightly ordered to be exercised within the bounds of marriage; and
WHEREAS, Scripture also consistently prohibits any other expression of sexually erotic activity outside the bounds of the marriage; and
WHEREAS, the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly will consider the Report and Recommendations on Ministry Policies from the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality which asks the ELCA to change its teaching and policy to affirm the possibility of same-sex sexual relationships, for pastors and other rostered leaders in the ELCA; and
WHEREAS, a synodical or congregational option on ministry standards would represent a real change in the teaching of our church forcing even those synods and congregations that do not agree with this change implicitly to accept the notion that Scripture is not clear in its teaching about marriage or about homosexual behavior; and
WHEREAS, the interdependent relationship between the churchwide, synod, and congregation expressions of the ELCA requires one Office of Ministry, one roster of pastors, and one set of expectations for pastors and other rostered leaders throughout the ELCA; and
WHEREAS, the ELCA currently expresses its expectations of pastors and other rostered leaders through documents called Vision and Expectation[2]s and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline which are in harmony with the plain sense of Scripture and its overwhelming understanding throughout history; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ____ Assembly thank the members of the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality for their work; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ____ Assembly memorialize the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly to reject the proposals in the Report and Recommendations on Ministry Policies from the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ____ Synod Assembly memorialize the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly to reaffirm the ELCA’s current standards for pastors and other rostered leaders as expressed in Vision and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline.
[1] Formula of Concord, The Epitome, 1. – The Book Of Concord, Edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, Fortress Press.
[2] Especially pertinent are the lines: “Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life. Married ordained ministers are expected to live in fidelity to their spouses, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a marriage relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful. Ordained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships.”
Pass the Offering Plate, Take a Condom
Cap'n Bill here: AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!
Pass the Offering Plate, Take a Condom
United Church of Christ Promotes Contraceptive Distribution in the Sanctuary
“Efforts to distance the UCC from its Puritan heritage have been a consistent trend, but this move to distribute condoms is truly a bold departure.”-Alan Wisdom, IRD Vice President for Research and ProgramsWashington, DC—According to the HIV and AIDS Network of the United Church of Christ (UCC), Condoms should be distributed at places of worship. The March 19 statement, issued at a presentation to the UCC Wider Church Ministries Board, also called for making condoms available at faith-based educational settings.
According to UCC executive Michael Shuenemeyer, "The practice of safer sex is a matter of life and death. People of faith make condoms available because we have chosen life so that we and our children may live."
The UCC is the successor denomination to the Puritan and Congregationalist traditions. Membership has dropped steadily, from 2.1 million in 1967 to 1.2 million today. The UCC lost six percent of its membership in the most recent year, according to the 2009 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches.
IRD Vice President for Research and Programs Alan Wisdom
commented:“Shuenemeyer claims, ‘People of faith make condoms available because we have chosen life so that we and our children may live.’ One wonders where the children will come from if UCC members are religiously using their church-dispensed condoms.
“It is ironic that the main thing the UCC is offering its sexually active members is the technical assistance of condoms. Those can easily be obtained at any corner drugstore. One would hope that a church would be offering some moral guidance not available at the drugstore.
“The UCC, which prides itself on being ‘ecumenical,’ was quick to criticize Pope Benedict XVI for reiterating longstanding Catholic doubts about condoms as the solution to HIV/AIDS. It might have done better to consider more seriously the reasons why Catholic authorities oppose artificial contraception: because it turns sex into an activity in which persons instrumentalize one another’s bodies for pleasure, thus promoting the kind of promiscuity that accelerates the spread of HIV/AIDS.
“Parents concerned about schools distributing condoms might assume that the church would have their backs, reinforcing the traditional Christian ethic reserving sex for marriage. In the case of the UCC, that assumption would be wrong. Now, apparently, parents need to think twice before dropping their kids off for Sunday school.”
“Efforts to distance the UCC from its Puritan heritage have been a consistent trend, but this move to distribute condoms is truly a bold departure.”
Pass the Offering Plate, Take a Condom
United Church of Christ Promotes Contraceptive Distribution in the Sanctuary
“Efforts to distance the UCC from its Puritan heritage have been a consistent trend, but this move to distribute condoms is truly a bold departure.”-Alan Wisdom, IRD Vice President for Research and ProgramsWashington, DC—According to the HIV and AIDS Network of the United Church of Christ (UCC), Condoms should be distributed at places of worship. The March 19 statement, issued at a presentation to the UCC Wider Church Ministries Board, also called for making condoms available at faith-based educational settings.
According to UCC executive Michael Shuenemeyer, "The practice of safer sex is a matter of life and death. People of faith make condoms available because we have chosen life so that we and our children may live."
The UCC is the successor denomination to the Puritan and Congregationalist traditions. Membership has dropped steadily, from 2.1 million in 1967 to 1.2 million today. The UCC lost six percent of its membership in the most recent year, according to the 2009 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches.
IRD Vice President for Research and Programs Alan Wisdom
commented:“Shuenemeyer claims, ‘People of faith make condoms available because we have chosen life so that we and our children may live.’ One wonders where the children will come from if UCC members are religiously using their church-dispensed condoms.
“It is ironic that the main thing the UCC is offering its sexually active members is the technical assistance of condoms. Those can easily be obtained at any corner drugstore. One would hope that a church would be offering some moral guidance not available at the drugstore.
“The UCC, which prides itself on being ‘ecumenical,’ was quick to criticize Pope Benedict XVI for reiterating longstanding Catholic doubts about condoms as the solution to HIV/AIDS. It might have done better to consider more seriously the reasons why Catholic authorities oppose artificial contraception: because it turns sex into an activity in which persons instrumentalize one another’s bodies for pleasure, thus promoting the kind of promiscuity that accelerates the spread of HIV/AIDS.
“Parents concerned about schools distributing condoms might assume that the church would have their backs, reinforcing the traditional Christian ethic reserving sex for marriage. In the case of the UCC, that assumption would be wrong. Now, apparently, parents need to think twice before dropping their kids off for Sunday school.”
“Efforts to distance the UCC from its Puritan heritage have been a consistent trend, but this move to distribute condoms is truly a bold departure.”
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
ELCA Bishops Participate in HIV Screening
Shrimp here, with ELCA News' follow-up from about an hour ago on our "Purpose Driven Bishops" post from last November, for which we posted this "Media Advisory" 2 weeks ago.
ELCA Bishops Participate in HIV Screening
09-065-JB
Bishop Wayne Miller, left, ELCA Metropolitan Chicago Synod, takes a swab for an HIV test from Sharon Gerc, Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, center, also took an HIV test.
CHICAGO (ELCA) -- Hoping to encourage other church leaders and lessen the stigma and discrimination that often surrounds HIV and AIDS, most members of the Conference of Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) participated in HIV screening March 5 here at the Lutheran Center.
The ELCA Conference of Bishops is an advisory body of the church, consisting of bishops who lead the 65 synods of the ELCA, plus the ELCA presiding bishop and ELCA secretary. The conference met March 5-10 here and in Itasca, Ill.
At least 56 members of the conference were screened, said the Rev. Andrea DeGroot-Nesdahl, ELCA Office of the Presiding Bishop. One or more bishops were screened prior to the meeting, and a few were not able to attend, she said.
Staff with Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill., supervised the screening, done with an oral swab. Results will be reported to members' physicians.
The conference agreed to the screening last October. Through screening, members said they could raise awareness about AIDS-related issues including prevention, testing, treatment, care, stigma and discrimination. The conference also wanted the testing to call attention to a proposed churchwide HIV and AIDS strategy, to be considered by the ELCA Church Council later this month.
"I hope that (the bishops) create awareness in their own synods and with their global companions that they indeed participated in the testing, and in that way raise awareness of the concern both locally and globally," said the Rev. Paul Stumme-Diers, bishop, ELCA Greater Milwaukee Synod, and chair of the conference's Ministry Among People in Poverty (MAPP) committee, which proposed the testing.
The Rev. Marie C. Jerge, bishop, ELCA Upstate New York Synod, Camillus, and vice chair of the conference, said HIV and AIDS is an important subject to her because the synod maintains a companion relationship with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Zimbabwe. The synod has been working with the Zimbabwe church on HIV prevention and supporting AIDS orphans, she said.
"It's also part of (helping) to raise awareness in our own communities," Jerge said. "This is one way we can make that kind of a witness." She added she hopes the ELCA Conference of Bishops' action will influence others, including bishops of the United Methodist Church, which expressed an interest in doing something similar.
Reflecting on the experience, the Rev. Jon V. Anderson, bishop, ELCA Southwestern Minnesota Synod, Redwood Falls, said, "I'm haunted by the memory of fresh graves in huge fields."
He explained, "We visited a big church of our companion church body, the southeastern diocese of South Africa. We were looking out into the field. I asked, 'Is this one of the fields that you need help working on with agricultural issues?' The (local) bishop said, "No, it's full of dead bodies, Jon.' People from nearby communities had begun to bury loved ones there. He took me and showed me this."
Anderson said he believes that through the conference's HIV testing, it will help other religious leaders lead their people to be tested, address stigma, break through fear, and deepen understanding of HIV and AIDS. Ultimately he hopes the ELCA bishops' example will encourage others to work to prevent HIV and care for people with HIV.
The Rev. Mark S. Hanson, ELCA presiding bishop, also participated in the screening.
---
Audio of Bishop Stumme-Diers is at http://media.ELCA.org/audionews/090316a.mp3
Audio of Bishop Jerge is at http://media.ELCA.org/audionews/090316b.mp3
Audio of Bishop Anderson is at http://media.ELCA.org/audionews/090316c.mp3
Information about the ELCA's response to HIV and AIDS is at http://www.ELCA.org/Our-Faith-In-Action/Justice/Poverty-Ministries/HIV-and-AIDS.aspx on the ELCA Web site.
For information contact:
John Brooks, Director (773) 380-2958 or news@elca.org
http://www.elca.org/news
ELCA News Blog: http://www.elca.org/news/blog
ELCA Bishops Participate in HIV Screening
09-065-JB
Bishop Wayne Miller, left, ELCA Metropolitan Chicago Synod, takes a swab for an HIV test from Sharon Gerc, Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, center, also took an HIV test.
CHICAGO (ELCA) -- Hoping to encourage other church leaders and lessen the stigma and discrimination that often surrounds HIV and AIDS, most members of the Conference of Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) participated in HIV screening March 5 here at the Lutheran Center.
The ELCA Conference of Bishops is an advisory body of the church, consisting of bishops who lead the 65 synods of the ELCA, plus the ELCA presiding bishop and ELCA secretary. The conference met March 5-10 here and in Itasca, Ill.
At least 56 members of the conference were screened, said the Rev. Andrea DeGroot-Nesdahl, ELCA Office of the Presiding Bishop. One or more bishops were screened prior to the meeting, and a few were not able to attend, she said.
Staff with Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill., supervised the screening, done with an oral swab. Results will be reported to members' physicians.
The conference agreed to the screening last October. Through screening, members said they could raise awareness about AIDS-related issues including prevention, testing, treatment, care, stigma and discrimination. The conference also wanted the testing to call attention to a proposed churchwide HIV and AIDS strategy, to be considered by the ELCA Church Council later this month.
"I hope that (the bishops) create awareness in their own synods and with their global companions that they indeed participated in the testing, and in that way raise awareness of the concern both locally and globally," said the Rev. Paul Stumme-Diers, bishop, ELCA Greater Milwaukee Synod, and chair of the conference's Ministry Among People in Poverty (MAPP) committee, which proposed the testing.
The Rev. Marie C. Jerge, bishop, ELCA Upstate New York Synod, Camillus, and vice chair of the conference, said HIV and AIDS is an important subject to her because the synod maintains a companion relationship with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Zimbabwe. The synod has been working with the Zimbabwe church on HIV prevention and supporting AIDS orphans, she said.
"It's also part of (helping) to raise awareness in our own communities," Jerge said. "This is one way we can make that kind of a witness." She added she hopes the ELCA Conference of Bishops' action will influence others, including bishops of the United Methodist Church, which expressed an interest in doing something similar.
Reflecting on the experience, the Rev. Jon V. Anderson, bishop, ELCA Southwestern Minnesota Synod, Redwood Falls, said, "I'm haunted by the memory of fresh graves in huge fields."
He explained, "We visited a big church of our companion church body, the southeastern diocese of South Africa. We were looking out into the field. I asked, 'Is this one of the fields that you need help working on with agricultural issues?' The (local) bishop said, "No, it's full of dead bodies, Jon.' People from nearby communities had begun to bury loved ones there. He took me and showed me this."
Anderson said he believes that through the conference's HIV testing, it will help other religious leaders lead their people to be tested, address stigma, break through fear, and deepen understanding of HIV and AIDS. Ultimately he hopes the ELCA bishops' example will encourage others to work to prevent HIV and care for people with HIV.
The Rev. Mark S. Hanson, ELCA presiding bishop, also participated in the screening.
---
Audio of Bishop Stumme-Diers is at http://media.ELCA.org/audionews/090316a.mp3
Audio of Bishop Jerge is at http://media.ELCA.org/audionews/090316b.mp3
Audio of Bishop Anderson is at http://media.ELCA.org/audionews/090316c.mp3
Information about the ELCA's response to HIV and AIDS is at http://www.ELCA.org/Our-Faith-In-Action/Justice/Poverty-Ministries/HIV-and-AIDS.aspx on the ELCA Web site.
For information contact:
John Brooks, Director (773) 380-2958 or news@elca.org
http://www.elca.org/news
ELCA News Blog: http://www.elca.org/news/blog
Spiritual Gifts and Hard Choices
Spiritual Gifts and Hard Choices
by Sarah Wilson — March 15, 2009
Lutheran Forum
"Such biblical passages inspired Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship, which we all read and loved at seminary, with little sense of the real, painful, even devastating demands it would make on our own lives.
"The whole conversation we are having about the ordination of homosexuals troubles me among other reasons because it assumes that there should be an easy, happy solution. I see nothing in the Scriptures to make me think this would be the case. I see promises of persecutions; also promises of rewards for those who can endure; but nothing to indicate to me that I should be absolved of the need for hard choices, genuine sacrifices, real heartbreak."
Read it all:
http://www.lutheranforum.org/sexuality/spiritual-gifts-and-hard-choices/
by Sarah Wilson — March 15, 2009
Lutheran Forum
"Such biblical passages inspired Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship, which we all read and loved at seminary, with little sense of the real, painful, even devastating demands it would make on our own lives.
"The whole conversation we are having about the ordination of homosexuals troubles me among other reasons because it assumes that there should be an easy, happy solution. I see nothing in the Scriptures to make me think this would be the case. I see promises of persecutions; also promises of rewards for those who can endure; but nothing to indicate to me that I should be absolved of the need for hard choices, genuine sacrifices, real heartbreak."
Read it all:
http://www.lutheranforum.org/sexuality/spiritual-gifts-and-hard-choices/
Monday, March 16, 2009
Task Force Proposes Second-Class Ordination for Gay Candidates
Task Force Proposes Second-Class Ordination for Gay Candidates
by Sarah Wilson — March 05, 2009
The ELCA Task Force on sexuality has proved to be an even greater ecclesiological disaster than moral disaster, which is no small achievement. Not only does the new teaching document on sexuality not actually teach anything, but the accompanying recommendations on the ordination of sexually active homosexuals actually voids the church and its ministry of all meaning. What appears to be a compromise is either a massive insult to homosexuals or a dirty trick on those opposing their ordination...
The ELCA Task Force on sexuality has proved to be an even greater ecclesiological disaster than moral disaster, which is no small achievement. Not only does the new teaching document on sexuality not actually teach anything, but the accompanying recommendations on the ordination of sexually active homosexuals actually voids the church and its ministry of all meaning.
What appears to be a compromise is either a massive insult to homosexuals or a dirty trick on those opposing their ordination.
http://www.lutheranforum.org/sexuality/task-force-proposes-second-class-ordination-for-gay-candidates/
by Sarah Wilson — March 05, 2009
The ELCA Task Force on sexuality has proved to be an even greater ecclesiological disaster than moral disaster, which is no small achievement. Not only does the new teaching document on sexuality not actually teach anything, but the accompanying recommendations on the ordination of sexually active homosexuals actually voids the church and its ministry of all meaning. What appears to be a compromise is either a massive insult to homosexuals or a dirty trick on those opposing their ordination...
The ELCA Task Force on sexuality has proved to be an even greater ecclesiological disaster than moral disaster, which is no small achievement. Not only does the new teaching document on sexuality not actually teach anything, but the accompanying recommendations on the ordination of sexually active homosexuals actually voids the church and its ministry of all meaning.
What appears to be a compromise is either a massive insult to homosexuals or a dirty trick on those opposing their ordination.
http://www.lutheranforum.org/sexuality/task-force-proposes-second-class-ordination-for-gay-candidates/
Harrr! She be talking like no land lubber!
Hoisted on the Trust Petard
by Sarah Wilson — March 09, 2009
Trust is the driving theme of the new ELCA Sexuality Statement. It is not a bad way to approach the issue, but in the context of the ELCA (and mainline American Christianity generally), there could hardly have been a more ironic choice...
Trust is the driving theme of the new ELCA Sexuality Statement. It is not a bad way to approach the issue, but in the context of the ELCA (and mainline American Christianity generally), there could hardly have been a more ironic choice.
Footnote 2 of the document states: “Some social scientists have begun to identify social trust as an indispensable feature of healthy organizations, institutions, and whole societies, and social distrust as one of the destructive forces at work in the breakdown and dissolution of organized social arrangements. Such reflections operate in the background of this statement.” Indeed!
And yet the very situation of this document, its dissemination, and its upcoming consideration at the assembly, is situated in the most profound ecclesial distrust. Our church is already wildly factionalized, each side amassing its resources and connections to sway the vote one way or another. We are witnessing the “breakdown and dissolution” already.
http://www.lutheranforum.org/sexuality/hoisted-on-the-trust-petard/
by Sarah Wilson — March 09, 2009
Trust is the driving theme of the new ELCA Sexuality Statement. It is not a bad way to approach the issue, but in the context of the ELCA (and mainline American Christianity generally), there could hardly have been a more ironic choice...
Trust is the driving theme of the new ELCA Sexuality Statement. It is not a bad way to approach the issue, but in the context of the ELCA (and mainline American Christianity generally), there could hardly have been a more ironic choice.
Footnote 2 of the document states: “Some social scientists have begun to identify social trust as an indispensable feature of healthy organizations, institutions, and whole societies, and social distrust as one of the destructive forces at work in the breakdown and dissolution of organized social arrangements. Such reflections operate in the background of this statement.” Indeed!
And yet the very situation of this document, its dissemination, and its upcoming consideration at the assembly, is situated in the most profound ecclesial distrust. Our church is already wildly factionalized, each side amassing its resources and connections to sway the vote one way or another. We are witnessing the “breakdown and dissolution” already.
http://www.lutheranforum.org/sexuality/hoisted-on-the-trust-petard/
"I Think I Want a Divorce"
At stake here is Luther’s foundational claim for the plain sense clarity of Scripture as Word of God for the confessing Church in the world, and whether this principle is now to be abandoned to the shifting whim of votes at assemblies without authority or competence to decide matters of binding church doctrine. A non-papal Church that abandons the clear teaching of Holy Scripture in the form of a binding confession that has stood the test of time has no ground to stand on any more. It becomes whatever it can be conned it into being by those who get to frame the question, as in the present Draft Social Statement.
The rest is here:http://lutheranforum.org/sexuality/i-think-i-want-a-divorce
The rest is here:http://lutheranforum.org/sexuality/i-think-i-want-a-divorce
Presbyterian Church Votes On Gay Ministers
Cap'n Bill here: AAARRGGGHHH! The storm she blows! The good ship PCUSA is coming apart. This bodes badly for all mainliners who already bend to the cultural wind. . .
Time to check yer lifeboats and life preservers. Make sure your last captain didn't sell 'em at the last church tag sale.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is voting to decide whether or not gay ministers should be allowed to serve and whether or not single ministers should be bound to practice chastity.
Pittsburgh Presbytery voted 206-105 this weekend against the proposed amendment, which would also require church officers to practice fidelity in heterosexual marriage. So far, 43 other presbyteries have voted in favor of the measure and 72 voted against, according to an unofficial tally on the Web site of the Presbyterian Coalition, a group opposed to the amendment. The last count by the Presbyterian News Service had the count at 42 to 69 last week. Over 87 presbyteries must pass the amendment in order for it to become church law.
The vote is not the first time the Presbyterian Church has discussed the issue. The current vote is the third time in the last 30 years that gay ministers have been voted on by the denomination, with the last vote having been held in 2002.
A General Assembly Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage is set to hold its first meeting next week. The committee will convene tomorrow morning and work through Thursday. The assembly will make policy recommendations on various topics, including civil unions, Christian marriage, the effects of gay couples on children they may raise, and the place of same-sex couples in the Christian community.
Time to check yer lifeboats and life preservers. Make sure your last captain didn't sell 'em at the last church tag sale.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is voting to decide whether or not gay ministers should be allowed to serve and whether or not single ministers should be bound to practice chastity.
Pittsburgh Presbytery voted 206-105 this weekend against the proposed amendment, which would also require church officers to practice fidelity in heterosexual marriage. So far, 43 other presbyteries have voted in favor of the measure and 72 voted against, according to an unofficial tally on the Web site of the Presbyterian Coalition, a group opposed to the amendment. The last count by the Presbyterian News Service had the count at 42 to 69 last week. Over 87 presbyteries must pass the amendment in order for it to become church law.
The vote is not the first time the Presbyterian Church has discussed the issue. The current vote is the third time in the last 30 years that gay ministers have been voted on by the denomination, with the last vote having been held in 2002.
A General Assembly Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage is set to hold its first meeting next week. The committee will convene tomorrow morning and work through Thursday. The assembly will make policy recommendations on various topics, including civil unions, Christian marriage, the effects of gay couples on children they may raise, and the place of same-sex couples in the Christian community.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
ELCA Grassroots? Luther College, Decorah, Iowa
And then this appears in Chips, the student newspaper of Luther College. Remember that, traditionally at least, Lutheran colleges are a significant source for the next generation of Lutheran pastors.
And note to Lutheran CORE: Do you notice how Dr. Benne is identified as representing the WordAlone Network? Shrimp out, for today at least
ELCA engages in homosexuality debate
March 12, 2009
By: Don Stein, Staff Writer
Luther's mission statement says its affiliation with the church helps it remain committed to seeking truth, examining faith and caring for God's people. Currently, many within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are doing the same.
On Feb. 19, the ELCA's Task Force for Studies on Sexuality released two controversial documents — one a social statement, and the second a recommendation on ministry policies.
The statements seek to clearly define the church's views on homosexuality. If approved, they will allow individual ELCA churches and synods to decide whether to call openly gay or lesbian pastors.
The statements are a change from the current position held by the ELCA, which disqualifies "practicing homosexuals" from holding pastoral office. Many within the ELCA have praised the statements for their careful mediation between those who are calling for changes and those who are more reluctant.
Luther is a Reconciling in Christ congregation, meaning it makes a commitment to welcoming all people — regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. As a result, news of the statement was viewed as a major breakthrough by many, including PRIDE member Peter McLellen ('09).
"It's definitely a step in the right direction," McLellen said.
"We can't say that we're getting closer to the top of the stairs, since there's always a new goal to climb toward. But I think it's definitely a step up the never-ending staircase."
Campus Pastor Amy Zalk Larson agreed.
"Although I don't think the statement goes far enough, I do think it is a step in the right direction because if more people are able to see gay and lesbian pastors doing good, faithful ministry it may help to break down some of the barriers," she said.
The statements have attracted disapproval from other Lutheran church bodies, especially the conservative Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. In a statement released Feb. 22, LCMS president Gerald Kieschnick criticized the proposal,
"If this recommendation should be adopted, it would constitute a radical departure from the 2,000-year-long teaching of the Christian tradition."
Kieschnick also distanced his church from the ELCA, reiterating a past LCMS resolution,
"We cannot consider [the ELCA] to be an orthodox Lutheran church body. [However,] we of the LCMS recognize that many of our brothers and sisters of the ELCA remain faithful to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and we resolve to reach out to them in love and support."
Perhaps the most vocal critics of the proposal come from within the ELCA, particularly from the "Word Alone" movement. Word Alone is an association of 230 mostly-ELCA churches that emphasize an importance on scripture. The group is concerned that the new social statement sacrifices theological ground in order to relate to modern society.
Robert Benne is a Word Alone member and Professor Emeritus of Roanoke College and said the following in a statement Feb. 19:
"The Task Force states that 'This ought not to be church-dividing, even if there are differences.' [Some people] representing the ELCA, follow this line of thinking: 'Our Christian unity does not depend on agreement about ethical matters.' Would it be church-dividing if the ELCA suggested that we alter the Sixth Commandment to allow adultery if the two spouses agreed? Did not the Episcopal Church split over violations of Christian moral teaching, something we Lutherans seem eager to imitate?"
Word Alone has also criticized what they consider the proposal's lack of church-wide consensus.
"The document admits that we have no consensus on that key issue but yet propose major changes in teaching and policies anyway," Benne said.
"This is 'journeying together faithfully?' This is more like 'we respect your bound conscience by adapting those policies to which you are opposed.'"
Benne went on to suggest that a break off from the ELCA may occur in the near future,
"We may have to separate amicably rather than journey faithfully."
Numerous voices within Word Alone have also advocated a break from the ELCA, and this movement could be the final straw.
"Groups like Word Alone have been angry about a variety of different things for a while," Zalk-Larson said. "They've tried to stay within the ELCA, but there's a lot of anger. We'll hear a lot from them because they're loud— the people who have been upset by this, who are more conservative. We don't hear many of the GLBT people who have been alienated and outcast from the church or who just choose to go away and use their gifts in ministry somewhere else."
The proposal still faces a long road before it is approved. Later this month, the ELCA Church Council may amend the documents or pass them along with a recommendation to the Churchwide Assembly, which will ultimately vote on the proposal in August.
And note to Lutheran CORE: Do you notice how Dr. Benne is identified as representing the WordAlone Network? Shrimp out, for today at least
ELCA engages in homosexuality debate
March 12, 2009
By: Don Stein, Staff Writer
Luther's mission statement says its affiliation with the church helps it remain committed to seeking truth, examining faith and caring for God's people. Currently, many within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are doing the same.
On Feb. 19, the ELCA's Task Force for Studies on Sexuality released two controversial documents — one a social statement, and the second a recommendation on ministry policies.
The statements seek to clearly define the church's views on homosexuality. If approved, they will allow individual ELCA churches and synods to decide whether to call openly gay or lesbian pastors.
The statements are a change from the current position held by the ELCA, which disqualifies "practicing homosexuals" from holding pastoral office. Many within the ELCA have praised the statements for their careful mediation between those who are calling for changes and those who are more reluctant.
Luther is a Reconciling in Christ congregation, meaning it makes a commitment to welcoming all people — regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. As a result, news of the statement was viewed as a major breakthrough by many, including PRIDE member Peter McLellen ('09).
"It's definitely a step in the right direction," McLellen said.
"We can't say that we're getting closer to the top of the stairs, since there's always a new goal to climb toward. But I think it's definitely a step up the never-ending staircase."
Campus Pastor Amy Zalk Larson agreed.
"Although I don't think the statement goes far enough, I do think it is a step in the right direction because if more people are able to see gay and lesbian pastors doing good, faithful ministry it may help to break down some of the barriers," she said.
The statements have attracted disapproval from other Lutheran church bodies, especially the conservative Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. In a statement released Feb. 22, LCMS president Gerald Kieschnick criticized the proposal,
"If this recommendation should be adopted, it would constitute a radical departure from the 2,000-year-long teaching of the Christian tradition."
Kieschnick also distanced his church from the ELCA, reiterating a past LCMS resolution,
"We cannot consider [the ELCA] to be an orthodox Lutheran church body. [However,] we of the LCMS recognize that many of our brothers and sisters of the ELCA remain faithful to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and we resolve to reach out to them in love and support."
Perhaps the most vocal critics of the proposal come from within the ELCA, particularly from the "Word Alone" movement. Word Alone is an association of 230 mostly-ELCA churches that emphasize an importance on scripture. The group is concerned that the new social statement sacrifices theological ground in order to relate to modern society.
Robert Benne is a Word Alone member and Professor Emeritus of Roanoke College and said the following in a statement Feb. 19:
"The Task Force states that 'This ought not to be church-dividing, even if there are differences.' [Some people] representing the ELCA, follow this line of thinking: 'Our Christian unity does not depend on agreement about ethical matters.' Would it be church-dividing if the ELCA suggested that we alter the Sixth Commandment to allow adultery if the two spouses agreed? Did not the Episcopal Church split over violations of Christian moral teaching, something we Lutherans seem eager to imitate?"
Word Alone has also criticized what they consider the proposal's lack of church-wide consensus.
"The document admits that we have no consensus on that key issue but yet propose major changes in teaching and policies anyway," Benne said.
"This is 'journeying together faithfully?' This is more like 'we respect your bound conscience by adapting those policies to which you are opposed.'"
Benne went on to suggest that a break off from the ELCA may occur in the near future,
"We may have to separate amicably rather than journey faithfully."
Numerous voices within Word Alone have also advocated a break from the ELCA, and this movement could be the final straw.
"Groups like Word Alone have been angry about a variety of different things for a while," Zalk-Larson said. "They've tried to stay within the ELCA, but there's a lot of anger. We'll hear a lot from them because they're loud— the people who have been upset by this, who are more conservative. We don't hear many of the GLBT people who have been alienated and outcast from the church or who just choose to go away and use their gifts in ministry somewhere else."
The proposal still faces a long road before it is approved. Later this month, the ELCA Church Council may amend the documents or pass them along with a recommendation to the Churchwide Assembly, which will ultimately vote on the proposal in August.
ELCA Grassroots? Brookings, South Dakota
And then there's this from last Friday's Brookings (South Dakota) Register. Brookings is the home of South Dakota State University and is not far from the Minnesota border -- within the geographic heart of the ELCA . Note the responses from three of the ELCA pastors in town.
'Gay clergy' not an issue for local ELCA
Friday, Mar 6th, 2009
by: John Kubal
"Right now (there's) not much at the local level to be involved in." In brief that's the position cited by the Rev. Dave Schoeld, interim senior pastor, First Lutheran Church, in Brookings, relative to moves afoot by some in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) to lift its ban on the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy candidates.
The ELCA, 4.8 million members, allows gay or lesbian clergy, but only if they are pledged to remain celibate.
There are seven Lutheran congregations in Brookings:
- Ascension Lutheran Church, First Lutheran Church and the University Lutheran Center are affiliated with ELCA;
- Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church and Peace Lutheran Church with the Missouri Synod; and
- Our Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church (which also has an SDSU campus ministry affiliated with the Wisconsin Synod).
Schoeld agreed with the Register's premise that the issue is a "non-starter" for the Missouri and Wisconsin synods.
By way of genesis, Schoeld said the "whole conversation began in about '93 or '95." A sort of grass-roots resolution that arose at one of the smaller districts of the ELCA "kept finding feet." Eventually it surfaced at the highest levels of ELCA leadership. A group commissioned a study; now the issue keeps moving and has "morphed and grown."
A definitive look will now be taken when a four-part resolution , contained in a 30-page document , is addressed by a church-wide assembly of more than 1,000 delegates meeting mid-August in Minneapolis. South Dakota will be represented by both clergy and laypeople.
Schoeld pointed out that South Dakota's delegates would vote "not on behalf of South Dakota, but will vote their consciences." The resolution will consider:
- The ELCA's committment to allowing congregations and synods to acknowledge and support "lifelong, monogomous, same-gender relationships."
- The committment of the ELCA to finding a way for people living in such relationships to serve the church as clergy.
- The ELCA's aggreement to "respect the bound consciences" of its church members who do not agree on the issue.
- The ELCA must agree to remove its ban on gay clergy living in partnered relationships.
But when the ELCA's 37-member Church Council meets this month in Chicago, its members could amend the four major proposals for Minneapolis. Schoeld said the fourth resolution was the only one that "really deals with the ordination of gay or lesbian clergy." Along the way, each one moves along the line of "Are we really even ready for the conversation.'"
In simple terms, he said "bound consciences" means that ELCA church members on opposite sides of the issue must have mutual "respect for space and grace of another." Schoeld said he had heard no opinion on the issue "either way from the congregation." But he added, "Part of it has to do with the fact that we haven't made it a big issue here. We have not spent a lot of time in conversation regarding it. It's not been something that truly in any large way has affected this church."
However, he noted that the issue for his congregation had reached a point "where we're probably going to have to have some conversations." For now the issue is "something for study, for conversation and for consideration."
Not an issue for under-30s
The Rev. Robert Chell, pastor the ELCA University Lutheran Center which ministers to students attending South Dakota State University, has by-and-large a younger and more mobile congregation. Most will be part of his on-campus ministry for four years. For them the issue is a non-issue.
"There aren't many people under the age of 30 for whom this is an issue," Chell said. "They're concerned with what they're going to do with their life, who their life partner is going to be and what they're going to do over spring break."
In considering the issue, Chell recalled some words he heard years ago from a Roman Catholic theologian from Notre Dame, whose name he could not recall: "Watch out for people who condemn sins they couldn't commit if they wanted to."
Continuing Chell said, "By putting our energy into this as individuals, as a congregation a church, we're not doing those things that Christ called us to do: whether that's to love our neighbor or proclaim the Gospel."
By way of analogy and some parellels, Chell harked back to the 19th century and slavery in the United States when people came down on both sides of the issue pro or con and used Scripture to justify their positions . He added, "There are some parallels there. The question isn't whether we interpret Scripture literally or not; it's how we interpret Scripture. If it was crystal-clear, we would all be on the same page.
"But it's how we interpret Scripture and which pages we interpret literally." Lutherans are real comfortable with ambiguity."
The Rev. Rhonda Hanisch, senior pastor of Ascension Lutheran Church, referred the Register to the 30-page document on the issue and declined to comment.
'Gay clergy' not an issue for local ELCA
Friday, Mar 6th, 2009
by: John Kubal
"Right now (there's) not much at the local level to be involved in." In brief that's the position cited by the Rev. Dave Schoeld, interim senior pastor, First Lutheran Church, in Brookings, relative to moves afoot by some in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) to lift its ban on the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy candidates.
The ELCA, 4.8 million members, allows gay or lesbian clergy, but only if they are pledged to remain celibate.
There are seven Lutheran congregations in Brookings:
- Ascension Lutheran Church, First Lutheran Church and the University Lutheran Center are affiliated with ELCA;
- Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church and Peace Lutheran Church with the Missouri Synod; and
- Our Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church (which also has an SDSU campus ministry affiliated with the Wisconsin Synod).
Schoeld agreed with the Register's premise that the issue is a "non-starter" for the Missouri and Wisconsin synods.
By way of genesis, Schoeld said the "whole conversation began in about '93 or '95." A sort of grass-roots resolution that arose at one of the smaller districts of the ELCA "kept finding feet." Eventually it surfaced at the highest levels of ELCA leadership. A group commissioned a study; now the issue keeps moving and has "morphed and grown."
A definitive look will now be taken when a four-part resolution , contained in a 30-page document , is addressed by a church-wide assembly of more than 1,000 delegates meeting mid-August in Minneapolis. South Dakota will be represented by both clergy and laypeople.
Schoeld pointed out that South Dakota's delegates would vote "not on behalf of South Dakota, but will vote their consciences." The resolution will consider:
- The ELCA's committment to allowing congregations and synods to acknowledge and support "lifelong, monogomous, same-gender relationships."
- The committment of the ELCA to finding a way for people living in such relationships to serve the church as clergy.
- The ELCA's aggreement to "respect the bound consciences" of its church members who do not agree on the issue.
- The ELCA must agree to remove its ban on gay clergy living in partnered relationships.
But when the ELCA's 37-member Church Council meets this month in Chicago, its members could amend the four major proposals for Minneapolis. Schoeld said the fourth resolution was the only one that "really deals with the ordination of gay or lesbian clergy." Along the way, each one moves along the line of "Are we really even ready for the conversation.'"
In simple terms, he said "bound consciences" means that ELCA church members on opposite sides of the issue must have mutual "respect for space and grace of another." Schoeld said he had heard no opinion on the issue "either way from the congregation." But he added, "Part of it has to do with the fact that we haven't made it a big issue here. We have not spent a lot of time in conversation regarding it. It's not been something that truly in any large way has affected this church."
However, he noted that the issue for his congregation had reached a point "where we're probably going to have to have some conversations." For now the issue is "something for study, for conversation and for consideration."
Not an issue for under-30s
The Rev. Robert Chell, pastor the ELCA University Lutheran Center which ministers to students attending South Dakota State University, has by-and-large a younger and more mobile congregation. Most will be part of his on-campus ministry for four years. For them the issue is a non-issue.
"There aren't many people under the age of 30 for whom this is an issue," Chell said. "They're concerned with what they're going to do with their life, who their life partner is going to be and what they're going to do over spring break."
In considering the issue, Chell recalled some words he heard years ago from a Roman Catholic theologian from Notre Dame, whose name he could not recall: "Watch out for people who condemn sins they couldn't commit if they wanted to."
Continuing Chell said, "By putting our energy into this as individuals, as a congregation a church, we're not doing those things that Christ called us to do: whether that's to love our neighbor or proclaim the Gospel."
By way of analogy and some parellels, Chell harked back to the 19th century and slavery in the United States when people came down on both sides of the issue pro or con and used Scripture to justify their positions . He added, "There are some parallels there. The question isn't whether we interpret Scripture literally or not; it's how we interpret Scripture. If it was crystal-clear, we would all be on the same page.
"But it's how we interpret Scripture and which pages we interpret literally." Lutherans are real comfortable with ambiguity."
The Rev. Rhonda Hanisch, senior pastor of Ascension Lutheran Church, referred the Register to the 30-page document on the issue and declined to comment.
ELCA Grassroots? Clackamas, Oregon
Shrimp here, having caught the following from the weekly Clackamas (Ore.) Review. Clackamas is in northwest Oregon, a suburb of Portland. You will discover that among the members of its ELCA congregation is the Oregon Synod Bishop.
Clackamas congregation welcomes gay community
by Ellen Spitaleri
The Clackamas Review, Mar 10, 2009
"The stars lined up" in Happy Valley, said Rev. Dayle Askey, when her congregation at Creator Lutheran Church voted to official welcome the gay community into its church.
The congregation recently adopted an Affirmation of Welcome that is "designed explicitly to welcome people who have historically been excluded" from churches, including gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders, said Gary Schulstad, a member of the committee that put together the affirmation.
In January, church-goers voted to accept the affirmation with a 93 percent approval rating, resulting in Creator Lutheran officially becoming a Reconciling in Christ congregation. RIC is a national program set up in 1984 to recognize Lutheran congregations that welcomed lesbian and gay believers. In 2002, action was taken to include people of all sexual orientations and gender identities in the RIC program.
Askey said it was important to adopt the Affirmation of Welcome and become a Reconciling in Christ congregation because although Creator Lutheran was already "known for being friendly, we wanted to take welcoming to the next level — we want to be extravagant in our welcome."
"We wanted this, not just for our members who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual, but for the people who love them. We want to be purposeful in our welcome," added Toni Hartung, office administrator at the church.
Year of discernment
The process of writing the Affirmation of Welcome took a little over a year, but "the congregation has been moving toward this from day one," said Askey, who has been the pastor of the church for 10 years.
Schulstad noted that the committee embarked on "a year-long process of discernment and listening" in December of 2007 that culminated in the congregation voting to pass the affirmation by 93 percent.
Hartung, a committee member, said she and Schulstad were fortunate enough to attend an Evangelical Lutheran Church of America training last March that really got the affirmation process up and running.
Educating the congregation about what an Affirmation of Welcome entails was of prime importance to the committee, Schulstad and Hartung said, so they scheduled an event per month to let people experience the process as it happened.
One activity that was a turning point occurred when a former intern at Creator Lutheran returned to talk about his decision to come out as a gay pastor.
"He was not out when he was here and he was much-loved," Askey noted.
Sharing concerns
People of all sexual orientations were invited to share their stories about past church experiences and members of the congregation were asked to "name their fears and concerns," Schulstad said.
"[The committee] wanted people to feel comfortable expressing doubts and concerns. There were no arguments – we just listened and addressed these [concerns] later," he said.
Last August, Bishop David Brauer-Rieke, a congregation member, put together a Bible study that gave an understanding of how the scripture has been taken out of context in relation to the acceptance of other sexual orientations in church.
"It was an on-line collaboration, with statements from other churches. It was a blog-like presentation, and people added comments," Schulstad said.
High school students in the congregation were also part of the process, and came up with some of the actual wording, including the "come as you are" part of the affirmation, Schulstad noted.
In September, a draft of the Affirmation of Welcome went out in survey form.
The committee wanted to test the waters to see what result a January vote might have, Schulstad said, adding, "A 93 percent approval rate was really important to us."
Schulstad kept a blog and had a "rainbow box" set up at the church for comments, resulting in "so little negativity," Askey said.
She considers the acceptance of the affirmation as significant because "with the percentage, it becomes not only an Affirmation of Welcome, but an identity" for the church.
"It says 'Like Luther, here I stand,'" said Hartung, noting that the affirmation is "another step in our becoming such a welcoming congregation."
Clackamas congregation welcomes gay community
by Ellen Spitaleri
The Clackamas Review, Mar 10, 2009
"The stars lined up" in Happy Valley, said Rev. Dayle Askey, when her congregation at Creator Lutheran Church voted to official welcome the gay community into its church.
The congregation recently adopted an Affirmation of Welcome that is "designed explicitly to welcome people who have historically been excluded" from churches, including gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders, said Gary Schulstad, a member of the committee that put together the affirmation.
In January, church-goers voted to accept the affirmation with a 93 percent approval rating, resulting in Creator Lutheran officially becoming a Reconciling in Christ congregation. RIC is a national program set up in 1984 to recognize Lutheran congregations that welcomed lesbian and gay believers. In 2002, action was taken to include people of all sexual orientations and gender identities in the RIC program.
Askey said it was important to adopt the Affirmation of Welcome and become a Reconciling in Christ congregation because although Creator Lutheran was already "known for being friendly, we wanted to take welcoming to the next level — we want to be extravagant in our welcome."
"We wanted this, not just for our members who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual, but for the people who love them. We want to be purposeful in our welcome," added Toni Hartung, office administrator at the church.
Year of discernment
The process of writing the Affirmation of Welcome took a little over a year, but "the congregation has been moving toward this from day one," said Askey, who has been the pastor of the church for 10 years.
Schulstad noted that the committee embarked on "a year-long process of discernment and listening" in December of 2007 that culminated in the congregation voting to pass the affirmation by 93 percent.
Hartung, a committee member, said she and Schulstad were fortunate enough to attend an Evangelical Lutheran Church of America training last March that really got the affirmation process up and running.
Educating the congregation about what an Affirmation of Welcome entails was of prime importance to the committee, Schulstad and Hartung said, so they scheduled an event per month to let people experience the process as it happened.
One activity that was a turning point occurred when a former intern at Creator Lutheran returned to talk about his decision to come out as a gay pastor.
"He was not out when he was here and he was much-loved," Askey noted.
Sharing concerns
People of all sexual orientations were invited to share their stories about past church experiences and members of the congregation were asked to "name their fears and concerns," Schulstad said.
"[The committee] wanted people to feel comfortable expressing doubts and concerns. There were no arguments – we just listened and addressed these [concerns] later," he said.
Last August, Bishop David Brauer-Rieke, a congregation member, put together a Bible study that gave an understanding of how the scripture has been taken out of context in relation to the acceptance of other sexual orientations in church.
"It was an on-line collaboration, with statements from other churches. It was a blog-like presentation, and people added comments," Schulstad said.
High school students in the congregation were also part of the process, and came up with some of the actual wording, including the "come as you are" part of the affirmation, Schulstad noted.
In September, a draft of the Affirmation of Welcome went out in survey form.
The committee wanted to test the waters to see what result a January vote might have, Schulstad said, adding, "A 93 percent approval rate was really important to us."
Schulstad kept a blog and had a "rainbow box" set up at the church for comments, resulting in "so little negativity," Askey said.
She considers the acceptance of the affirmation as significant because "with the percentage, it becomes not only an Affirmation of Welcome, but an identity" for the church.
"It says 'Like Luther, here I stand,'" said Hartung, noting that the affirmation is "another step in our becoming such a welcoming congregation."
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
ELCA Bishops Offer "Pastoral Word"
In Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is the hostility between us. – Ephesians 2
We greet you in the name of our crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ. May your Lenten journey be a time of renewal in faith, and may the Easter promise surround you all.
As we conclude this meeting of the Conference of Bishops, we are convinced that this time of preparation for the 2009 Churchwide Assembly is a hopeful time. We are also convinced that the Holy Spirit is guiding our deliberation and is present in our earnest seeking. This same Spirit increases our ability to listen patiently and speak honestly to one another. In the many conversations, hearings, and correspondence of the past years, the Spirit has been present in the work of the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality.
Our conversations in the Conference of Bishops have expressed the diversity of opinion that is common throughout this church. We give thanks for the unity binding us together in Christ, enabling us to listen carefully to one another, and joining us in a shared commitment to the mission of this church. We give witness to the creative possibilities of diverse perspectives within our baptismal unity. We have been led to new appreciation of our diversity, have been driven deeper into Scripture and Confessions, and have discovered new perspectives for life together as the Body of Christ.
We receive with gratitude Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust: A proposed social statement from the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality. Looking forward to the deliberation of the 2009 Churchwide Assembly and its decisions in regard to this document, we:
- rejoice in the strong affirmation of the gift of marriage, sexuality, and family;
- affirm the faithful exposition of Holy Scripture and Lutheran Confessions;
- support the bold confrontation of the commercialization of human sexuality pervading our culture;
- recognize that our world hungers for the joy of true intimacy and love we know in Christ Jesus our Lord;
- embrace our call to be a public church, thankful we are able to speak words of commitment and hope to a world in need of God’s love in Christ; and
- acknowledge the unity of the Church is the Holy Spirit’s continuing gift, and pray we may continually experience it.
We acknowledge with gratitude the faithful work of the members of the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality. Their work over the past eight years has been a profound gift to this church. Charged with daunting responsibilities, their resulting witness is articulate. Working together amidst a diversity representative of our church, they testify of their deepened love for one another. The experience of these faithful servants as they in their diversity came to these conclusions encourages us in our own diversity. No matter our particular position on the various issues of human sexuality, we are united by our confession of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all."
We prayerfully trust that God will guide this whole church in the coming months as we walk together in our deliberative processes. We know that our human decisions are often imperfect, but we are confident of God’s persistent forgiveness. We are deeply committed to the unity of this church. Whatever decisions the assembly makes, we trust that God’s Spirit will form the wisdom of God’s faithful people gathered in deliberative assembly. We are prepared to stand together united in our continued service to the Church. May the Spirit align our efforts with God’s gracious intent.
May Almighty God grant each of us the ability to listen with compassion and may we speak patiently. May our prayers for God-pleasing decisions be answered abundantly.
The Conference of Bishops
March 10, 2009
Hat tip to the ELCA News Service.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Blogging the Conference of Bishops
Shrimp here.
The ELCA Conference of Bishops has been having its Spring Meeting since Thursday at the Eaglewood Resort in Itasca, Illinois. Usually we don't hear too much about what happened until ELCA News gets around to reporting. Of late, those reports have been issued only a day or 2 after the COB has departed, though a few years ago it might take 2-3 weeks. Guess they are more newsworthy now.
Anyway, the Conference of Bishops has since the beginning of the ELCA apparently subscribed to the motto, "What happens in the Conference of Bishops stays in the Conference of Bishops." Oh, yes, there were reports of any significant actions in this ELCA "advisory body." And occasionally there were reports of some disagreements, but except for the full-communion agreement with the Episcopal Church, details were very hard to come by. No, as a rule -- at least for public perception -- when the Bishops spoke as a group, they spoke as a unified group.
So when suddenly Synod Bishops were suddenly getting on line at the last Churchwide Assembly to strongly disagree with each other with what the Bishops had said as a group, long-term observers were stunned. So stunned that one Voting Member, Pastor David Gleason, introduced this resolution from the floor (which, at that point of the agenda, was extraordinary in itself)
But this year, we may have a little hint ahead of time. One of the avenues for the ELCA's Book of Faith initiative ("to increase biblical literacy and fluency for the sake of the world") is a Ning group (ning.com is one of a growing number of "social networking" sites like "MySpace" or "Facebook"). And one of the features of the Book of Faith Ning Network is the ability for a member to have a blog on his or her own profile page. Several ELCA Bishops are members of the Book of Faith Ning Network. And one Bishop, the Oregon Synod's Dave Brauer-Rieke not only actually blogs there, he's been blogging about the Conference of Bishops meeting.
Shrimp found this from early in his first entry a striking observation:
Turns out Bishop Brauer-Rieke is on the COB's Theological and Ethical Concerns Committee, which also met that first day. So we learn about
You won't find any breaking news from the Conference of Bishops on the Oregon Bishop's blog. But Shrimp got a glimpse of the COB that we'd never seen before. You might check it out.
Shrimp out.
The ELCA Conference of Bishops has been having its Spring Meeting since Thursday at the Eaglewood Resort in Itasca, Illinois. Usually we don't hear too much about what happened until ELCA News gets around to reporting. Of late, those reports have been issued only a day or 2 after the COB has departed, though a few years ago it might take 2-3 weeks. Guess they are more newsworthy now.
Anyway, the Conference of Bishops has since the beginning of the ELCA apparently subscribed to the motto, "What happens in the Conference of Bishops stays in the Conference of Bishops." Oh, yes, there were reports of any significant actions in this ELCA "advisory body." And occasionally there were reports of some disagreements, but except for the full-communion agreement with the Episcopal Church, details were very hard to come by. No, as a rule -- at least for public perception -- when the Bishops spoke as a group, they spoke as a unified group.
So when suddenly Synod Bishops were suddenly getting on line at the last Churchwide Assembly to strongly disagree with each other with what the Bishops had said as a group, long-term observers were stunned. So stunned that one Voting Member, Pastor David Gleason, introduced this resolution from the floor (which, at that point of the agenda, was extraordinary in itself)
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America meeting in Assembly in Chicago Illinois on 11th August 2007 request the ELCA's conference of Synodical bishops to enter into discussion and consideration of the matter of the accountability of bishops to the adopted policies, practices, and procedures of the ELCA and to formulate a clear statement of such accountability for consideration and adoption by the 2009 Assembly of this church.Quickly adopted by the Assembly, the "Gleason Resolution" has been a topic for the COB ever since. We can expect that we'll be hearing about their response very soon from ELCA News, as the Spring Meeting is when the COB deals with anticipated Churchwide Assembly matters. (So, yes, we'll learn if they have anything to say about the Sexuality Task Force's reports, the state of the ELCA's finances, etc.)
But this year, we may have a little hint ahead of time. One of the avenues for the ELCA's Book of Faith initiative ("to increase biblical literacy and fluency for the sake of the world") is a Ning group (ning.com is one of a growing number of "social networking" sites like "MySpace" or "Facebook"). And one of the features of the Book of Faith Ning Network is the ability for a member to have a blog on his or her own profile page. Several ELCA Bishops are members of the Book of Faith Ning Network. And one Bishop, the Oregon Synod's Dave Brauer-Rieke not only actually blogs there, he's been blogging about the Conference of Bishops meeting.
Shrimp found this from early in his first entry a striking observation:
The first half day of Conference of Bishop (COB) meetings is generally made up of reunions and committee meetings. Those of us who are dealing with sticky problems in our synods usually line up to talk with the ELCA attorneys as we arrive. Thankfully the line wasn’t too long today.Thankfully indeed.
Turns out Bishop Brauer-Rieke is on the COB's Theological and Ethical Concerns Committee, which also met that first day. So we learn about
... a request from the 2007 Churchwide Assembly that the COB offer a report on our accountability practices. This arose because there was some cross talk between bishops at the 2007 Churchwide Assembly during floor debates. The Theological and Ethical Concerns Committee has been working on this request for the past year. Today we just tuned up our prior work. The COB has very clear accountability practices already in place, both to the church as a whole and to each other. We are glad to share these.Exactly what the Bishop means, we'll wait for ELCA News to tell us.
You won't find any breaking news from the Conference of Bishops on the Oregon Bishop's blog. But Shrimp got a glimpse of the COB that we'd never seen before. You might check it out.
Shrimp out.
Friday, March 06, 2009
2 ELCA Seminaries Consider "RIC" Status
Shrimp here, having received reports that two ELCA seminaries are currently discussing afffilating with the "Reconciling in Christ" Program of Lutherans Concerned/North America. Lutheran congregations, synods, and other organizations affiliate with the program by offering a "statement of welcome" to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered believers.
The two seminaries are the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia and Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary in Berkeley, California. Both seminiaries have already had for several years agreements with Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries to provide education and other oversight of candidates for ministry who do not accept the ELCA/ELCIC official stance ("please don't") on homosexual activity.
Recently alerted to a "series of conversations" at Philadelphia that are currently in progress, this is what we have gleaned from our source and Mt. Airy's student newspaper, The Seminiarian. The conversations began in the opening session of the seminary's Spring Convocation, "Scripture and Public Theology.” The February 24th session's theme was "Orienting our Sexual Conversations) where Dr. Erik Heen presented a lecture, "Biblical Resources for a Conversation about Homosexuality." A source tells us the lecture included nothing unexpected (at least in an ELM-affiliated, ELCA context), "although the contextualization through the use of social science criticism was actually very helpful." The lecture was followed by brief small group discussion. Says The Seminarian, "A second broadcast of this presentation will be on March 4th at 5:45 with conversation to follow."
Our source then quotes the student body president:
(As a sidelight, Shrimp observes from the February 2009 issue of The Seminarian that this year's controversy at Mt. Airy seems to be over whether the hooded albs used in the Chapel are too associated with the Ku Klux Klan. But we digress.)
Meanwhile the PLTS Board Chair has just today e-mailed the school's alumni:
Shrimp, also wishing you a contemplative Lent, out.
The two seminaries are the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia and Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary in Berkeley, California. Both seminiaries have already had for several years agreements with Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries to provide education and other oversight of candidates for ministry who do not accept the ELCA/ELCIC official stance ("please don't") on homosexual activity.
Recently alerted to a "series of conversations" at Philadelphia that are currently in progress, this is what we have gleaned from our source and Mt. Airy's student newspaper, The Seminiarian. The conversations began in the opening session of the seminary's Spring Convocation, "Scripture and Public Theology.” The February 24th session's theme was "Orienting our Sexual Conversations) where Dr. Erik Heen presented a lecture, "Biblical Resources for a Conversation about Homosexuality." A source tells us the lecture included nothing unexpected (at least in an ELM-affiliated, ELCA context), "although the contextualization through the use of social science criticism was actually very helpful." The lecture was followed by brief small group discussion. Says The Seminarian, "A second broadcast of this presentation will be on March 4th at 5:45 with conversation to follow."
Our source then quotes the student body president:
The second Event is currently scheduled for Tuesday March 31. It will be a presentation on the science behind sexual orientation from a sociological, biological and psychological point of view. This presentation will be lead by professor (s) from Weidner College Department of Human Sexuality. Discussion will follow in a similar format.That, so far, from the seminary founded by the Ministerium of Pennsylvania in 1864 that highlights Charles Porterfield Krauth, Luther Dotterer Reed, John Reumann, and so many other giants in the history of the General Council, the United Lutheran Church in America, and the Lutheran Church in America. Shrimp would report more of substance should it come to our attention.
The final presentation, not yet scheduled, will be about the particularities of the RIC designation, what it actually means and what specifically it requires of an institution. This will be made by a presentation will be made by regional officers of Lutherans Concerned, the organizing body behend the RIC designation. Discussion will follow in a similar format.
(As a sidelight, Shrimp observes from the February 2009 issue of The Seminarian that this year's controversy at Mt. Airy seems to be over whether the hooded albs used in the Chapel are too associated with the Ku Klux Klan. But we digress.)
Meanwhile the PLTS Board Chair has just today e-mailed the school's alumni:
Dear PLTS Alums,PLTS is the youngest of the ELCA seminaries, founded in 1950 by the ULCA's California Synod to provide Lutheran pastors in the western US. For those of you who have forgotten, the ELCA's homosexuality debates began in January 1988 when 3 gay male PLTS seminarians announced they had the month earlier been officially approved for ordination (presuming they passed their remaining classes) by the PLTS faculty and/or their LCA Synod's Professional Preparation Committee despite being publicly gay and either being, or hoping to be, in homosexual relationships.
Current PLTS students have requested that the PLTS board consider establishing a PLTS affiliation with the national "Reconciling In Christ" (RIC) Initiative. This January, our students organized, self-funded ($3,500) and conducted a course concerning this. I look forward to their further consultation with board members at our April 26 board meeting. They will be working with the board's Community Life & Academic Affairs Committee on an appropriate motion for us to consider.
In preparation for that Committee meeting and subsequent board conversation, knowing that our agenda will be full and time-limited, I've directed all board members to the RIC website as well as to an informative work by our professor David Balch.
Two weeks ago, PLTS hosted a conversation to share thoughts on the proposition that we become a Reconciling in Christ (RIC) seminary. Over fifty members of our community were able to be present and to share both excitement and reservation about this prospect.
Please click here to see the highlights of the conversation: hopes, fears, benefits, and risks of seeking an RIC designation, but also our thoughts about the possibility of PLTS not becoming an RIC seminary.
In recent days I've been canvassing the board to gather up and organize their concerns around this decision prior to the April 26 Board Meeting.
And I am [sic] welcome and encourage faculty, students, staff and alums to share their thoughts with me via email.
Enjoying with all of you the anticipation of Lent, thank you.
Shrimp, also wishing you a contemplative Lent, out.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Media Advisory: Lutheran Bishops to be Tested for HIV
Mar 02, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Media Advisory: Lutheran Bishops to be Tested for HIV
When: Thursday, March 5, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Where: The Lutheran Center, 8765 W. Higgins Rd., Chicago
Description: The 67-member Conference of Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) agreed last fall to undergo testing for HIV at its March 2009 meeting in Chicago. The purpose is to raise awareness about AIDS-related issues including prevention, testing, treatment, care, stigma and discrimination. The bishops hope their actions will encourage ELCA members and members of global companion churches to be tested. The Lutheran bishops also want to provide visible support for an ELCA strategy on HIV and AIDS to be considered by the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, Aug. 17-23 in Minneapolis.
Staff of Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, will supervise the testing. Personnel will collect samples orally with cotton swabs. Photography is welcome. You will be able to interview the bishops, including Bishop Wayne Miller of the ELCA Metropolitan Chicago Synod and the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, ELCA presiding bishop, Chicago.
The 4.7 million-member ELCA is based in Chicago. It is the country's 5th-largest Protestant denomination. The 107,000-member ELCA Metropolitan Chicago Synod consists of 206 congregations.
SOURCE: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Chicago
John R. Brooks
Office 773-380-2958; Mobile 847-894-4529; or john.brooks@elca.org
When: Thursday, March 5, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Where: The Lutheran Center, 8765 W. Higgins Rd., Chicago
Description: The 67-member Conference of Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) agreed last fall to undergo testing for HIV at its March 2009 meeting in Chicago. The purpose is to raise awareness about AIDS-related issues including prevention, testing, treatment, care, stigma and discrimination. The bishops hope their actions will encourage ELCA members and members of global companion churches to be tested. The Lutheran bishops also want to provide visible support for an ELCA strategy on HIV and AIDS to be considered by the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, Aug. 17-23 in Minneapolis.
Staff of Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, will supervise the testing. Personnel will collect samples orally with cotton swabs. Photography is welcome. You will be able to interview the bishops, including Bishop Wayne Miller of the ELCA Metropolitan Chicago Synod and the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, ELCA presiding bishop, Chicago.
The 4.7 million-member ELCA is based in Chicago. It is the country's 5th-largest Protestant denomination. The 107,000-member ELCA Metropolitan Chicago Synod consists of 206 congregations.
SOURCE: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Chicago
John R. Brooks
Office 773-380-2958; Mobile 847-894-4529; or john.brooks@elca.org
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Upper Susquehanna Synod Bishop Driesen's Letter
Pastoral Letter from Bishop Robert Driesen
The First Week in Lent,
February 26, 2009
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
This is a difficult letter to write, because I realize that it touches the lives of so many, all of whom are seeking to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ. Despite our differences, however, all of us should be able to agree that questions related to human sexuality, while going to the core of what it means to be a human creature, are transformed, like every aspect of our lives, by our baptism into Christ. The sciences and other human disciplines, while informative, are not determinative, as we wrestle with what God’s intention is for us, having created us as sexual beings.
The ELCA Social Statement, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, is the result of a long process that had its beginning in a request made by the voting members of the 2001 Churchwide Assembly, with an additional mandate provided in 2007 related to the rostering of homosexual persons in committed and faithful relationships. In many ways, it is unfortunate that this statement will be overshadowed by the rush to focus on the single issue of homosexuality, and, in particular, the ministry standards of this church.
I find the statement’'s starting place a good one. The gift of sexuality is seen within the context of the two great commandments: love of God, love of neighbor. Since human sexuality is an expression of human love, it should reflect God'’s love, including God'’s faithfulness and trustworthiness. Trust in relationships is a significant theme throughout the document.
While much more can be said about human sexuality from a theological perspective, there is little (but some things) in the statement with which I can disagree. Clearly, however, on matters related to rostering, the task force recognizes no consensus in this church, nor does it see a consensus building. Instead, the task force, in response to the mandate given it by the 2007 Churchwide Assembly, returns the question to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly, providing it with several resolutions that propose that this church engage in a process of clarifying its intent and agreeing to principles before moving on to practice.
If the Assembly answers the questions posed by the task force in the affirmative, this church would move in the direction of providing what many describe as a “local option.” Bishops, synods, synodical candidacy committees, congregations, congregation councils, and call committees would decide whether they believe that God is calling a particular person to rostered ministry who is in a faithful, committed same-sex relationship. If so, this church would add its assent in this particular instance and in this particular place.
I appreciate the skill with which the task force seeks to move our discussion of this question away from the usual way of suggesting that there are but two mutually exclusive, competing answers. That is, most who argue that we must maintain our present policy (unmarried persons regardless of their sexual orientation are called to a life of celibacy) do so by insisting that this is simply a matter of fidelity to Scripture. Those, on the other hand, who seek to change the policy often argue that this is a matter of justice. Both arguments, in my humble estimation, are overly simplistic.
Utilizing the notion of “bound consciences,” the task force seeks to end the tug-of-war between the two extremes, asking whether we can accept the bound consciences of others as also binding on us, by our giving honor to those whose convictions lead them to a different conclusion that our own.
I believe this is an interesting, respectful approach, and far better than what I so often hear. Nonetheless, I share with you my personal concerns about what this proposal would mean for this church, its place in the one, holy catholic and apostolic church, and the potential insurmountable challenges it would present to good order.
As I have often jokingly suggested, if this church elected me pope (God forbid!), the issue would be decided for good or ill, once and for all. But, for the reasons offered by Martin Luther and the confessors, this would be unwise—--even disastrous. It is also true, however, that just as threatening to the Church as it would be for one person to bind the consciences of all Christians, an equally disastrous and opposite danger would be for all Christians to be their own popes. While this is not what the task force is suggesting--it insists upon the community’'s assent--I worry, nonetheless, about what would happen, in practice, if I reached a conclusion that was completely opposed to all those referenced above. While I would hope that the synod council and everyone else--including call committees and congregations--would willingly be bound by my bound conscience, is this what is truly best for this church, and is this what actually would happen in every case? After all, we are also in bondage to sin. Sin will always enter our discussions, and even our decisions. Therefore, will not “structured flexibility” be chaos in the end? Frankly, I do not know, but it deeply concerns me. Even more so, I worry about what this means for us as we seek to be this expression of the Church in the world.
While I know that this ongoing discussion has become tiresome, I much prefer continuing the discussion until, at last, we can say, “It seems good to us and the Holy Spirit.” This is Christ’'s Church, not mine, and not yours. While I felt compelled as your bishop to share some of my thoughts, I recognize that others may have far more thoughtful responses than I. Whatever your views, may it be Christ who guides your thinking, not in isolation, but wherever two or three gather together in his Name.
The First Week in Lent,
February 26, 2009
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
This is a difficult letter to write, because I realize that it touches the lives of so many, all of whom are seeking to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ. Despite our differences, however, all of us should be able to agree that questions related to human sexuality, while going to the core of what it means to be a human creature, are transformed, like every aspect of our lives, by our baptism into Christ. The sciences and other human disciplines, while informative, are not determinative, as we wrestle with what God’s intention is for us, having created us as sexual beings.
The ELCA Social Statement, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, is the result of a long process that had its beginning in a request made by the voting members of the 2001 Churchwide Assembly, with an additional mandate provided in 2007 related to the rostering of homosexual persons in committed and faithful relationships. In many ways, it is unfortunate that this statement will be overshadowed by the rush to focus on the single issue of homosexuality, and, in particular, the ministry standards of this church.
I find the statement’'s starting place a good one. The gift of sexuality is seen within the context of the two great commandments: love of God, love of neighbor. Since human sexuality is an expression of human love, it should reflect God'’s love, including God'’s faithfulness and trustworthiness. Trust in relationships is a significant theme throughout the document.
While much more can be said about human sexuality from a theological perspective, there is little (but some things) in the statement with which I can disagree. Clearly, however, on matters related to rostering, the task force recognizes no consensus in this church, nor does it see a consensus building. Instead, the task force, in response to the mandate given it by the 2007 Churchwide Assembly, returns the question to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly, providing it with several resolutions that propose that this church engage in a process of clarifying its intent and agreeing to principles before moving on to practice.
If the Assembly answers the questions posed by the task force in the affirmative, this church would move in the direction of providing what many describe as a “local option.” Bishops, synods, synodical candidacy committees, congregations, congregation councils, and call committees would decide whether they believe that God is calling a particular person to rostered ministry who is in a faithful, committed same-sex relationship. If so, this church would add its assent in this particular instance and in this particular place.
I appreciate the skill with which the task force seeks to move our discussion of this question away from the usual way of suggesting that there are but two mutually exclusive, competing answers. That is, most who argue that we must maintain our present policy (unmarried persons regardless of their sexual orientation are called to a life of celibacy) do so by insisting that this is simply a matter of fidelity to Scripture. Those, on the other hand, who seek to change the policy often argue that this is a matter of justice. Both arguments, in my humble estimation, are overly simplistic.
Utilizing the notion of “bound consciences,” the task force seeks to end the tug-of-war between the two extremes, asking whether we can accept the bound consciences of others as also binding on us, by our giving honor to those whose convictions lead them to a different conclusion that our own.
I believe this is an interesting, respectful approach, and far better than what I so often hear. Nonetheless, I share with you my personal concerns about what this proposal would mean for this church, its place in the one, holy catholic and apostolic church, and the potential insurmountable challenges it would present to good order.
As I have often jokingly suggested, if this church elected me pope (God forbid!), the issue would be decided for good or ill, once and for all. But, for the reasons offered by Martin Luther and the confessors, this would be unwise—--even disastrous. It is also true, however, that just as threatening to the Church as it would be for one person to bind the consciences of all Christians, an equally disastrous and opposite danger would be for all Christians to be their own popes. While this is not what the task force is suggesting--it insists upon the community’'s assent--I worry, nonetheless, about what would happen, in practice, if I reached a conclusion that was completely opposed to all those referenced above. While I would hope that the synod council and everyone else--including call committees and congregations--would willingly be bound by my bound conscience, is this what is truly best for this church, and is this what actually would happen in every case? After all, we are also in bondage to sin. Sin will always enter our discussions, and even our decisions. Therefore, will not “structured flexibility” be chaos in the end? Frankly, I do not know, but it deeply concerns me. Even more so, I worry about what this means for us as we seek to be this expression of the Church in the world.
While I know that this ongoing discussion has become tiresome, I much prefer continuing the discussion until, at last, we can say, “It seems good to us and the Holy Spirit.” This is Christ’'s Church, not mine, and not yours. While I felt compelled as your bishop to share some of my thoughts, I recognize that others may have far more thoughtful responses than I. Whatever your views, may it be Christ who guides your thinking, not in isolation, but wherever two or three gather together in his Name.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Benne: No Grounds to Change? Then Don't
Prof. Robert Benne responds to the Task Force's reports, courtesy Lutheran CORE (click here for pdf copy). Hat tip to Pastor Zip, who gave us a nice title to use.
When There Are No Biblical or Theological Grounds to Change, Don’t
The Statement and Recommendations of the Sexuality Task Force have been released, and they are as disappointing as I expected them to be, though the statement itself is much improved in some ways. It moves closer to the Lutheran way of doing Christian ethics as well as to the church’s rich understanding of the centrality of marriage. Yet, the key problems remain: the statement avoids making normative judgments about homosexual conduct by neglecting the testimony of the Bible and the Christian moral tradition on that issue. In doing so it departs from the moral consensus that the church has held for millennia, a consensus that was reflected in the social statements of the predecessor Lutheran churches. We essentially will have no teaching at all on this matter. Yet, the Task Force moves forward anyway, violating the settled prudent conviction that there should be overwhelming evidence against a moral teaching and practice of long standing before it is changed. The two documents admit we have no consensus on that key issue but yet propose major changes in teaching and policies anyway. This is “journeying together faithfully?” This is more like “we respect your bound conscience by adapting those policies to which you are opposed.”
The “Bound-conscience” Doctrine
There are two erroneous judgments that anchor the statement. The first has to do with the “bound-conscience” doctrine that is so central to the documents. Both documents argue that we can have major differences in our convictions about central matters of faith and life and live with them as long as we sincerely hold different views of biblical interpretation and Christian doctrine. This relativizes Christian teaching by appeal to sincerity. Luther did not doubt that his opponents were sincere at Worms, or that they held different views of biblical interpretation and church teaching. He thought they were wrong and he was right, on the basis of the Word of God and clear reason. Further, he appealed to the teachings of earlier authorities in the church in his debates with the Church of Rome at that time. He thought the weight of Scripture and authentic Church tradition was on his side of the tough issues of that day.
Likewise, I believe it is incontestable that the Scriptures and the moral teaching of the Christian church throughout the ages—and presently that of the ecumenical church—proscribe homosexual relations of any sort.[1] (Conversely, I am quite certain that the revisionist side believes it is right and I am wrong.) Thus, I am not satisfied with appeals to sincerity and tolerance, especially since I think Christian teaching is clear. And I am certainly not satisfied with those appeals when the recommendations of the Task Force lead to no teachings at all on the subject, but yet lead to sharp changes in practice. Appeals to sincerity will not do. We may have to separate amicably rather than journey faithfully, since the right construal of the faith is at stake.
Another dubious facet of the “bound-conscience” doctrine is the claim that the revisionist side will respect the convictions of the orthodox or traditionalist side over time. Richard Neuhaus famously opined: “Where orthodoxy is optional, in time it will be proscribed.” He hit the nail on the head. The revisionists already control the “commanding heights” of the ELCA—the headquarters, the Church Council, the majority of the Sexuality Task Force, most of the seminaries and colleges, the publishing house, and many Synods. They make sure that outspoken proponents of orthodox teaching on these matters do not disturb the near consensus they have forged. (If you keep quiet about these things, you may get hired or appointed, but you must remain quiet in order not to be shunned.) I have been in so many ELCA contexts where this process of selection has been at work that I don’t have space to enumerate them. Let’s just say that the most of the cards are held by those in the “commanding heights” and they will not respect those with orthodox convictions who might threaten their hand. And in time those orthodox convictions will not even be allowed to surface. This, by the way, has been the trajectory of those orthodox voices in the Episcopal Church. Finally, orthodox voices were so marginalized that they began another church.
A cynic might charge that the appeal to respect consciences is a convenient instrument to mollify those orthodox among the laity who are very upset by the moves being made. The revisionists do not want those laity to bolt the ELCA or send their money elsewhere. So the statements promise that their consciences will be respected. But beyond the congregational level, such respect will be hard to come by in a few years. Indeed, it already is.
The Demotion of the Law
While this draft definitely bolsters the role and evaluation of the Law of God—his commandments—in the first part of the draft, it forgets about them theologically and practically when the chips are down. First, Lutherans have always believed that the Word of God includes both the Law and the Gospel. Indeed, one could say that the full meaning of the Gospel includes the Trinitarian faith—the revelation of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Without the first and third persons of the Trinity, the Gospel of justification is either unintelligible or leads to cheap grace. The first part of the new draft does affirm the Law in principle, but when it comes to disagreement over what the Law commands, it says that such disagreement is not church-dividing. This reduces the importance of the Law and makes agreement on justification the sole source and sum of our unity. “Thus, we recognize that this church’s deliberations related to human sexuality do not threaten the center of our faith, but rather require our best moral discernment and practical wisdom in the worldly (left-hand kingdom) realm.” (10:326) Likewise, Task Force Chairman Peter Strommen states that “This ought not to be church-dividing, even if there are differences.” Stanley Olson, representing the ELCA , follows this line of thinking: “…Our Christian unity does not depend on agreement about ethical matters.”
This is quite a novel teaching. Would it be church-dividing if the ELCA suggested we alter the Sixth Commandment to allow adultery if the two spouses agreed upon the practice? Did the Lutheran World Federation allow the Apartheid-supporting Lutheran Church in South Africa “to journey together faithfully” with the rest of the Lutheran churches? If I remember correctly, denouncing Apartheid became a matter of status confessionis, and that little church was tossed out of the LWF. Did the Christians of the Barmen Declaration resist the Nazis because they attacked the doctrine of justification? Hardly. Rather, they resisted because the Nazis demanded that they violate the First Commandment by recognizing the Nazi regime as a higher authority than God. Did the southern and northern branches of the Lutheran Church divide over the doctrine of justification during the Civil War? Indeed, did not the Episcopal Church split over violations of Christian moral teaching, something we Lutherans seem eager to imitate?
There definitely is a sense in which we can live with our differences when it comes to public policy. Lutherans live with all sorts of differences in social and political ethics. The left-leaning pronouncements of our Bishop and the ELCA in this realm are merely irritating, not church-dividing. Most agree that Christians of good will and intelligence can come down differently on the issue of recognizing civil unions in society. But the sexuality issues under discussion have to do with the teaching and practice of the church. They strike much closer to the core of Christian life and teaching—what does it mean to love the neighbor in sexual matters? What does it mean to confess Jesus as Lord in our personal life? Are the Commandments a guide in these matters, two of which assume the heterosexual nature of the marriage?
The demotion of the Law and the isolation of justification from repentance and amendment of life will not do. These disagreements are far more serious than the statement suggests. Further, as in the case of the Episcopalians, disagreement on the matter of the Law reveals other differences, especially on the authority of Scripture and the church’s tradition of moral teaching. The Episcopal shipwreck had little to do with disagreements about justification.
A Continuing Problem: Aversion to Form in Christian Ethics
I complained about the formlessness of the first draft of this document. I called it an “Ethic for Tele-tubbies” because it refused to recognize formal principles in ethics: male and female forms, ethical rules, the Commandments, different forms of love, the created forms in which those different forms of love are properly expressed, and the God-intended forms of marriage and family. This statement bolsters that formal element by recognizing and explicating the Commandments of God as a guide for the Christian life (6: 204ff. and the footnote on 6) and extolling marriage as an institution established by God.
But, oddly, I believe, it relies on the concept of “trust” to make the case for right relationships in personal and social life. However, “trust” is not really a principle of moral guidance; rather, it is the quality in a relationship that arises when moral actions elicit trust. It is the proper actions and the guiding principles and intentions lying behind them that elicit trust. Trust is not the active principle but rather the response. Thus, love in its various forms elicits trust—the love of God for each sinner, loving actions among friends, between husband and wife, between parents and children, and so forth. But it is very clear in Christian ethics that different forms of love are appropriate to different forms of relationship. Erotic love does not and should not elicit trust if it is directed from parent to child. Such love is also forbidden for those outside the marriage bond. Filial love is directed toward parents but does not include erotic love. The love of friends is of yet another sort. Agape love, the crown of Christian ethics, seems appropriate in all forms of relationships that need mending and/or mercy.
It is on this issue that the statement fails. By relying on “trust,” it avoids the Christian moral tradition’s distinctions about forms of love and their appropriate expression. The Bible and Christian sexual ethics throughout the ages prohibit sexual love with those who are too close to us (incest), those who are too different from us (bestiality), those who are too different in age and maturity (pederasty), and those who are too much like us (homosexuality). One part of that settled Christian moral consensus is now being challenged and that is a very serious matter, one that is likely to be church-dividing. (Logically, once the prohibition against homosexual conduct goes it seems unlikely that other challenges can be resisted. Trust can emerge in all of those forbidden relationships. It is the actions that are morally illicit.)
Further, in the long section on family life the statement seems unable to affirm the God-intended pattern of a mother and father bearing and nurturing children. It grudgingly accepts the “nuclear” family’s ability to “foster the development of trust in children and youth,” (20: 727ff) but it cannot bring itself to hold up that triad as the ideal for Christians. (By this I do not mean that we should be uncaring or unwelcoming of other forms of family, but in this confused world we should be able to impart a normative vision of what God intends for his creation.)
The statement also shows reluctance to employ rules regarding pre-marital sex. It relies on the principle that “degrees of sexual intimacy should be carefully matched to degrees of growing affection and commitment.” (27:1005) But that convenient principle leaves it up to the individual to decide the level of commitment present in a relationship. Does sex come with a promising relationship, with “going-steady,” with engagement, with living together, none of which are “non-monogamous, promiscuous, or casual?” (27:1012) Fairly fuzzy teaching, that.[2]
Likewise, the statement is pretty fuzzy on cohabitation. While “this church does not favor” cohabitation, it offers many reasons why it might be tolerated or even allowed. (28: 1045-1066) It certainly muddles the C.S. Lewis’ famous summary of the rule of Christian sexual ethics: “Complete fidelity within the marriage bond; complete abstinence outside it.”
Finally, how can a statement on sexuality avoid the issue of abortion, particularly when we will soon have legislative efforts before congress to strike down all limits on that practice? If men and women have sex, children are often the result. The classic Christian understanding of marriage is that it is a one-flesh union of complementary beings (man and woman); oriented toward new life; and a protection against sexual sin. This would have been a perfect time to offer a strong endorsement of the sacrality of all nascent human life, which should be taken only for the weightiest of reasons.
Robert Benne
Professor Emeritus Roanoke College, Virginia, and Director of the Center for Religion and Society
____________
Footnotes:
[1] I want to make it clear that clear public teaching on these matters does not preclude compassionate and even flexible pastoral care in private. The issue at stake is what the teaching of the church should be. The revisionists in the ELCA aim at changing our teaching and public practice, not primarily at deepening and enriching its pastoral care.
[2] I offer a course in Christian sexual ethics at the end of which I survey student opinion on the issues discussed above. The students often turn out to be more “traditional” than I expect. I also ask them if the church’s teaching should be more “realistic,” more accommodated to their opinions. To a person they say “no,” they want the Christian sexual ethic in all its challenging grandeur to be taught and encouraged. They want something clear to aspire to and, if they fail, something before which to repent and amend their lives.
When There Are No Biblical or Theological Grounds to Change, Don’t
The Statement and Recommendations of the Sexuality Task Force have been released, and they are as disappointing as I expected them to be, though the statement itself is much improved in some ways. It moves closer to the Lutheran way of doing Christian ethics as well as to the church’s rich understanding of the centrality of marriage. Yet, the key problems remain: the statement avoids making normative judgments about homosexual conduct by neglecting the testimony of the Bible and the Christian moral tradition on that issue. In doing so it departs from the moral consensus that the church has held for millennia, a consensus that was reflected in the social statements of the predecessor Lutheran churches. We essentially will have no teaching at all on this matter. Yet, the Task Force moves forward anyway, violating the settled prudent conviction that there should be overwhelming evidence against a moral teaching and practice of long standing before it is changed. The two documents admit we have no consensus on that key issue but yet propose major changes in teaching and policies anyway. This is “journeying together faithfully?” This is more like “we respect your bound conscience by adapting those policies to which you are opposed.”
The “Bound-conscience” Doctrine
There are two erroneous judgments that anchor the statement. The first has to do with the “bound-conscience” doctrine that is so central to the documents. Both documents argue that we can have major differences in our convictions about central matters of faith and life and live with them as long as we sincerely hold different views of biblical interpretation and Christian doctrine. This relativizes Christian teaching by appeal to sincerity. Luther did not doubt that his opponents were sincere at Worms, or that they held different views of biblical interpretation and church teaching. He thought they were wrong and he was right, on the basis of the Word of God and clear reason. Further, he appealed to the teachings of earlier authorities in the church in his debates with the Church of Rome at that time. He thought the weight of Scripture and authentic Church tradition was on his side of the tough issues of that day.
Likewise, I believe it is incontestable that the Scriptures and the moral teaching of the Christian church throughout the ages—and presently that of the ecumenical church—proscribe homosexual relations of any sort.[1] (Conversely, I am quite certain that the revisionist side believes it is right and I am wrong.) Thus, I am not satisfied with appeals to sincerity and tolerance, especially since I think Christian teaching is clear. And I am certainly not satisfied with those appeals when the recommendations of the Task Force lead to no teachings at all on the subject, but yet lead to sharp changes in practice. Appeals to sincerity will not do. We may have to separate amicably rather than journey faithfully, since the right construal of the faith is at stake.
Another dubious facet of the “bound-conscience” doctrine is the claim that the revisionist side will respect the convictions of the orthodox or traditionalist side over time. Richard Neuhaus famously opined: “Where orthodoxy is optional, in time it will be proscribed.” He hit the nail on the head. The revisionists already control the “commanding heights” of the ELCA—the headquarters, the Church Council, the majority of the Sexuality Task Force, most of the seminaries and colleges, the publishing house, and many Synods. They make sure that outspoken proponents of orthodox teaching on these matters do not disturb the near consensus they have forged. (If you keep quiet about these things, you may get hired or appointed, but you must remain quiet in order not to be shunned.) I have been in so many ELCA contexts where this process of selection has been at work that I don’t have space to enumerate them. Let’s just say that the most of the cards are held by those in the “commanding heights” and they will not respect those with orthodox convictions who might threaten their hand. And in time those orthodox convictions will not even be allowed to surface. This, by the way, has been the trajectory of those orthodox voices in the Episcopal Church. Finally, orthodox voices were so marginalized that they began another church.
A cynic might charge that the appeal to respect consciences is a convenient instrument to mollify those orthodox among the laity who are very upset by the moves being made. The revisionists do not want those laity to bolt the ELCA or send their money elsewhere. So the statements promise that their consciences will be respected. But beyond the congregational level, such respect will be hard to come by in a few years. Indeed, it already is.
The Demotion of the Law
While this draft definitely bolsters the role and evaluation of the Law of God—his commandments—in the first part of the draft, it forgets about them theologically and practically when the chips are down. First, Lutherans have always believed that the Word of God includes both the Law and the Gospel. Indeed, one could say that the full meaning of the Gospel includes the Trinitarian faith—the revelation of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Without the first and third persons of the Trinity, the Gospel of justification is either unintelligible or leads to cheap grace. The first part of the new draft does affirm the Law in principle, but when it comes to disagreement over what the Law commands, it says that such disagreement is not church-dividing. This reduces the importance of the Law and makes agreement on justification the sole source and sum of our unity. “Thus, we recognize that this church’s deliberations related to human sexuality do not threaten the center of our faith, but rather require our best moral discernment and practical wisdom in the worldly (left-hand kingdom) realm.” (10:326) Likewise, Task Force Chairman Peter Strommen states that “This ought not to be church-dividing, even if there are differences.” Stanley Olson, representing the ELCA , follows this line of thinking: “…Our Christian unity does not depend on agreement about ethical matters.”
This is quite a novel teaching. Would it be church-dividing if the ELCA suggested we alter the Sixth Commandment to allow adultery if the two spouses agreed upon the practice? Did the Lutheran World Federation allow the Apartheid-supporting Lutheran Church in South Africa “to journey together faithfully” with the rest of the Lutheran churches? If I remember correctly, denouncing Apartheid became a matter of status confessionis, and that little church was tossed out of the LWF. Did the Christians of the Barmen Declaration resist the Nazis because they attacked the doctrine of justification? Hardly. Rather, they resisted because the Nazis demanded that they violate the First Commandment by recognizing the Nazi regime as a higher authority than God. Did the southern and northern branches of the Lutheran Church divide over the doctrine of justification during the Civil War? Indeed, did not the Episcopal Church split over violations of Christian moral teaching, something we Lutherans seem eager to imitate?
There definitely is a sense in which we can live with our differences when it comes to public policy. Lutherans live with all sorts of differences in social and political ethics. The left-leaning pronouncements of our Bishop and the ELCA in this realm are merely irritating, not church-dividing. Most agree that Christians of good will and intelligence can come down differently on the issue of recognizing civil unions in society. But the sexuality issues under discussion have to do with the teaching and practice of the church. They strike much closer to the core of Christian life and teaching—what does it mean to love the neighbor in sexual matters? What does it mean to confess Jesus as Lord in our personal life? Are the Commandments a guide in these matters, two of which assume the heterosexual nature of the marriage?
The demotion of the Law and the isolation of justification from repentance and amendment of life will not do. These disagreements are far more serious than the statement suggests. Further, as in the case of the Episcopalians, disagreement on the matter of the Law reveals other differences, especially on the authority of Scripture and the church’s tradition of moral teaching. The Episcopal shipwreck had little to do with disagreements about justification.
A Continuing Problem: Aversion to Form in Christian Ethics
I complained about the formlessness of the first draft of this document. I called it an “Ethic for Tele-tubbies” because it refused to recognize formal principles in ethics: male and female forms, ethical rules, the Commandments, different forms of love, the created forms in which those different forms of love are properly expressed, and the God-intended forms of marriage and family. This statement bolsters that formal element by recognizing and explicating the Commandments of God as a guide for the Christian life (6: 204ff. and the footnote on 6) and extolling marriage as an institution established by God.
But, oddly, I believe, it relies on the concept of “trust” to make the case for right relationships in personal and social life. However, “trust” is not really a principle of moral guidance; rather, it is the quality in a relationship that arises when moral actions elicit trust. It is the proper actions and the guiding principles and intentions lying behind them that elicit trust. Trust is not the active principle but rather the response. Thus, love in its various forms elicits trust—the love of God for each sinner, loving actions among friends, between husband and wife, between parents and children, and so forth. But it is very clear in Christian ethics that different forms of love are appropriate to different forms of relationship. Erotic love does not and should not elicit trust if it is directed from parent to child. Such love is also forbidden for those outside the marriage bond. Filial love is directed toward parents but does not include erotic love. The love of friends is of yet another sort. Agape love, the crown of Christian ethics, seems appropriate in all forms of relationships that need mending and/or mercy.
It is on this issue that the statement fails. By relying on “trust,” it avoids the Christian moral tradition’s distinctions about forms of love and their appropriate expression. The Bible and Christian sexual ethics throughout the ages prohibit sexual love with those who are too close to us (incest), those who are too different from us (bestiality), those who are too different in age and maturity (pederasty), and those who are too much like us (homosexuality). One part of that settled Christian moral consensus is now being challenged and that is a very serious matter, one that is likely to be church-dividing. (Logically, once the prohibition against homosexual conduct goes it seems unlikely that other challenges can be resisted. Trust can emerge in all of those forbidden relationships. It is the actions that are morally illicit.)
Further, in the long section on family life the statement seems unable to affirm the God-intended pattern of a mother and father bearing and nurturing children. It grudgingly accepts the “nuclear” family’s ability to “foster the development of trust in children and youth,” (20: 727ff) but it cannot bring itself to hold up that triad as the ideal for Christians. (By this I do not mean that we should be uncaring or unwelcoming of other forms of family, but in this confused world we should be able to impart a normative vision of what God intends for his creation.)
The statement also shows reluctance to employ rules regarding pre-marital sex. It relies on the principle that “degrees of sexual intimacy should be carefully matched to degrees of growing affection and commitment.” (27:1005) But that convenient principle leaves it up to the individual to decide the level of commitment present in a relationship. Does sex come with a promising relationship, with “going-steady,” with engagement, with living together, none of which are “non-monogamous, promiscuous, or casual?” (27:1012) Fairly fuzzy teaching, that.[2]
Likewise, the statement is pretty fuzzy on cohabitation. While “this church does not favor” cohabitation, it offers many reasons why it might be tolerated or even allowed. (28: 1045-1066) It certainly muddles the C.S. Lewis’ famous summary of the rule of Christian sexual ethics: “Complete fidelity within the marriage bond; complete abstinence outside it.”
Finally, how can a statement on sexuality avoid the issue of abortion, particularly when we will soon have legislative efforts before congress to strike down all limits on that practice? If men and women have sex, children are often the result. The classic Christian understanding of marriage is that it is a one-flesh union of complementary beings (man and woman); oriented toward new life; and a protection against sexual sin. This would have been a perfect time to offer a strong endorsement of the sacrality of all nascent human life, which should be taken only for the weightiest of reasons.
Robert Benne
Professor Emeritus Roanoke College, Virginia, and Director of the Center for Religion and Society
____________
Footnotes:
[1] I want to make it clear that clear public teaching on these matters does not preclude compassionate and even flexible pastoral care in private. The issue at stake is what the teaching of the church should be. The revisionists in the ELCA aim at changing our teaching and public practice, not primarily at deepening and enriching its pastoral care.
[2] I offer a course in Christian sexual ethics at the end of which I survey student opinion on the issues discussed above. The students often turn out to be more “traditional” than I expect. I also ask them if the church’s teaching should be more “realistic,” more accommodated to their opinions. To a person they say “no,” they want the Christian sexual ethic in all its challenging grandeur to be taught and encouraged. They want something clear to aspire to and, if they fail, something before which to repent and amend their lives.
Metro New York's Bishop Rimbo's Response
Bishop Robert Rimbo of the Metropolitan New York Synod writes,
On the way together
February 24, 2009
In my conference visitations I repeatedly have told people it’s all about relationships. God, the Holy Trinity, is a relationship. And our life together in the church is about relationships, too. We need each other. This theme of mind seems to resonate with leaders of our synod congregations. I’m grateful for that. In print last week was another story of one spouse shooting the other in a rage. Recently we have heard about an 11-year old boy killing his father’s pregnant girlfriend. Violence is common and the level of rage behind these instances of conflict, miscommunication, or jealousy is almost unbelievable. Disagreement and dysfunction about sex is no small factor.
That is why I want to remind you that this life we share in the church is all about relationships. In the end human sexuality is part of that reality.
The 33-page report on human sexuality takes pains to describe our best understanding of what it means to be related to one another as the family of God. It acknowledges the intimate ways in which human beings are together as offspring, as parents, as couples. In the face of an absolute deluge of sexuality in almost every aspect of life, it holds out themes of trust, grace, fairness, mercy and God and upholds those themes.
It also tries to outline a path for us to remain on the way together despite profound disagreement across the spectrum of opinion. I think it offers us hope that we shall remain one, as Jesus prayed. We, together, will have to assess whether it succeeds.
While this makes for a long message to you, I wanted to outline my understanding of what this message from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is saying. There has been a range of emotions – from anticipation to anxiety – surrounding the release of the Social Statement on Human Sexuality. Now that it is here, it is important to familiarize ourselves with its contents. Most of the statement is a non-controversial, comprehensive, Biblically-based understanding of human sexuality. As mentioned above, theological themes like trust, hope, joy, grace and faith are extraordinarily helpful in our efforts to reflect on healthy human sexual response and behavior.
In addition to the social statement, the task force was given the charge to bring forward possible changes in policies on rostered ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The simple question is "Can persons with homosexual orientations who are in publically committed relationships serve in the rostered leadership of our Church?"
The report includes recommendations for action by the Churchwide Assembly in a process. The Assembly will vote on the following four steps as separate, one-by-one resolutions. If step one passes, step two would be considered, and so on.
This is, again, how to understand the proposal:
Step one asks the Churchwide Assembly whether, in principle, it is committed to finding ways to allow congregations and synods that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships.
Step two asks the Churchwide Assembly whether, in principle, this church is committed to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church.
Step three asks this Church whether, in the future implementation of these commitments, it will make decisions so that all in this church bear the burdens of the other, and respect the bound consciences of all. This means that any solution that serves only the conscience-bound positions of one or another part of this church will not be acceptable.
Step four proposes how this Church can move toward change in a way that respects the bound consciences of all. It recognizes that such respect will lead to diversity of practice. However, the majority of the task force believes that the conscience-bound lack of consensus will be respected most faithfully by providing some structured flexibility in decision-making so that congregations and synods may choose whether or not to approve or call people in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve in rostered ministry in the ELCA.
In brief, the Churchwide Assembly this coming August will decide whether to create "space" for congregations and synods to publically recognize and hold accountable the relationship of same-gendered couples (step one), and (step two) whether our Church ought to find ways to allow the rostered ministry of such persons. The task force acknowledges that conscience-bound faithful Christians find themselves on different sides of this issue. The task force also acknowledges that we are bound not only in our own consciences but in love to the conscience of the other. Because of the lack of consensus in the church, the task force believes that we need to respect our differences and accept the different places in which the baptized find themselves. The recommendation affirms that our distinctive positions on this issue should not be church-dividing. No congregation or institution will be forced to call a leader they do not wish to call.
The documents will be reviewed by the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America at their meeting, March 27-30. The Council may choose to amend the proposed social statement and will recommend action on it for consideration by the Churchwide Assembly, August 17-23, 2009, in Minneapolis.
On the way together in this great Metropolitan New York Synod we will continue to seek to remain together. It may be like a family with some “issues.” I ask for your prayers, conversation and support for our church during this critical period.
Bishop Robert Alan Rimbo
On the way together
February 24, 2009
In my conference visitations I repeatedly have told people it’s all about relationships. God, the Holy Trinity, is a relationship. And our life together in the church is about relationships, too. We need each other. This theme of mind seems to resonate with leaders of our synod congregations. I’m grateful for that. In print last week was another story of one spouse shooting the other in a rage. Recently we have heard about an 11-year old boy killing his father’s pregnant girlfriend. Violence is common and the level of rage behind these instances of conflict, miscommunication, or jealousy is almost unbelievable. Disagreement and dysfunction about sex is no small factor.
That is why I want to remind you that this life we share in the church is all about relationships. In the end human sexuality is part of that reality.
The 33-page report on human sexuality takes pains to describe our best understanding of what it means to be related to one another as the family of God. It acknowledges the intimate ways in which human beings are together as offspring, as parents, as couples. In the face of an absolute deluge of sexuality in almost every aspect of life, it holds out themes of trust, grace, fairness, mercy and God and upholds those themes.
It also tries to outline a path for us to remain on the way together despite profound disagreement across the spectrum of opinion. I think it offers us hope that we shall remain one, as Jesus prayed. We, together, will have to assess whether it succeeds.
While this makes for a long message to you, I wanted to outline my understanding of what this message from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is saying. There has been a range of emotions – from anticipation to anxiety – surrounding the release of the Social Statement on Human Sexuality. Now that it is here, it is important to familiarize ourselves with its contents. Most of the statement is a non-controversial, comprehensive, Biblically-based understanding of human sexuality. As mentioned above, theological themes like trust, hope, joy, grace and faith are extraordinarily helpful in our efforts to reflect on healthy human sexual response and behavior.
In addition to the social statement, the task force was given the charge to bring forward possible changes in policies on rostered ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The simple question is "Can persons with homosexual orientations who are in publically committed relationships serve in the rostered leadership of our Church?"
The report includes recommendations for action by the Churchwide Assembly in a process. The Assembly will vote on the following four steps as separate, one-by-one resolutions. If step one passes, step two would be considered, and so on.
This is, again, how to understand the proposal:
Step one asks the Churchwide Assembly whether, in principle, it is committed to finding ways to allow congregations and synods that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships.
Step two asks the Churchwide Assembly whether, in principle, this church is committed to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church.
Step three asks this Church whether, in the future implementation of these commitments, it will make decisions so that all in this church bear the burdens of the other, and respect the bound consciences of all. This means that any solution that serves only the conscience-bound positions of one or another part of this church will not be acceptable.
Step four proposes how this Church can move toward change in a way that respects the bound consciences of all. It recognizes that such respect will lead to diversity of practice. However, the majority of the task force believes that the conscience-bound lack of consensus will be respected most faithfully by providing some structured flexibility in decision-making so that congregations and synods may choose whether or not to approve or call people in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve in rostered ministry in the ELCA.
In brief, the Churchwide Assembly this coming August will decide whether to create "space" for congregations and synods to publically recognize and hold accountable the relationship of same-gendered couples (step one), and (step two) whether our Church ought to find ways to allow the rostered ministry of such persons. The task force acknowledges that conscience-bound faithful Christians find themselves on different sides of this issue. The task force also acknowledges that we are bound not only in our own consciences but in love to the conscience of the other. Because of the lack of consensus in the church, the task force believes that we need to respect our differences and accept the different places in which the baptized find themselves. The recommendation affirms that our distinctive positions on this issue should not be church-dividing. No congregation or institution will be forced to call a leader they do not wish to call.
The documents will be reviewed by the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America at their meeting, March 27-30. The Council may choose to amend the proposed social statement and will recommend action on it for consideration by the Churchwide Assembly, August 17-23, 2009, in Minneapolis.
On the way together in this great Metropolitan New York Synod we will continue to seek to remain together. It may be like a family with some “issues.” I ask for your prayers, conversation and support for our church during this critical period.
Bishop Robert Alan Rimbo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The good ship ELCA...
Or the Shellfish blog...