Summary

ELCA Actions Summary (2009) by Roger Sween

Pat Sween and I attended the biennial Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Following is a report of what transpired with particular attention to the changes in ELCA teaching and practices related to human sexuality. Though well-covered in newspapers and in blogs and reports of various kinds, including official ELCA documents (see http://www.blogger.com/www.ELCA.org) , my effort here is to state what happened told within a limited explanation of the context in which actions occurred. Not everyone will want all of this summary even when brief. In that light, I have omitted the intended section on bound conscience (authoritatively stated on the website), bulleted the actions taken, and drastically capsulated the two documents in question. Accordingly this summary has the following parts.
Audience for this Summary.
Actions Taken with Votes (Selected).
Process of the ELCA.
Social Statement on Human Sexuality.
Ministry Recommendations.
Discussion and Voting.
Conclusion.

Audience for this Summary.
This summary intends to communicate with those we know whom we assume to be interested in the subject and in an eyewitness account of what happened at the ELCA Assembly. Thus a direct announcement was sent to our pastors with the request to make this summary available to the Council of United Lutheran Church in Red Wing, our colleagues in Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays – Red Wing, and our colleagues with whom we worked in developing resolutions for the April 2009 Southeastern Minnesota Synod Assembly. We also included members of a theology discussion group in which we participate, other friends including some newly met through this Assembly, our children and some of our other relatives.

Actions Taken with Votes (Selected).
Following is a highlight of actions taken that I present with minimal comment.

18 August. Lutheran Malaria Initiative. Under the UN Fund, a partnership with the LCMS to eradicate malaria from sub-Saharan Africa by 2015. 989 Yes; 11 No – passed with 98.9%.

19 August. Social Statement: Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust (as amended). 676 Yes; 338 No – passed with 66.67%, exactly the 2/3 required.

20 August. Social Statement Implementing Resolutions. 695 Yes; 285 No – passed with 70.92%

20 August. Full Communion with The United Methodist Church. 884 Yes; 41 No – passed with 95.59%.

21 August. Amended order of consideration of Ministry Policies Recommendations to 3, 1, 2, 4. Many found that 3 was necessarily prior to the others. 717 Yes; 270 No – passed with 72.64%

Resolution 1 on bound conscience as amended.
RESOLVED, that in the implementation of any resolutions on ministry policies, the ELCA commit itself to bear one another’s burdens, love the neighbor, and respect the bound consciences of all. 771 Yes; 230 No – passed with 77.02%.

Resolution 2.
RESOLVED, that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships. 619 Yes; 402 No – passed with 60.63%.

Resolution 3.
RESOLVED, 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. 559 Yes; 451 No – passed with 55.35%.

Resolution 4 expresses the principles the ELCA will honor and the processes that it will follow and develop to raise up, call, support and maintain rosters of ordained ministers, associates in ministry, deaconesses and diaconal ministers for public ministry. 667 Yes; 307 No – passed with 68.48%.

22 August.
2010-2011 Budget Proposal. 863 Yes; 71 No – passed with 95.46%.

Allow voting members to register in writing their votes on Resolutions 2 and 3 of the Recommendation on Ministry Policies. 473 Yes; 399 No – passed with 54.24%.

Allow voting members to register in writing their votes on Resolution 4 of the Recommendation on Ministry Policies. 520 Yes; No 359 – passed with 59.16%.

Request that the ELCA develop a social statement on justice for women in church and society to be received for approval in 2015. 754 Yes; 176 No – Passed with 81.01%.

Re-election of Carlos Pena to a six-year term as Vice President of the ELCA; 4th ballot. 580 of 954 cast for three remaining candidates – passed with 60.8%, 60% required for election

Election of the ELCA Council.

Other Constitutional changes and motions.

Process of the ELCA.
This Assembly is a body composed of voting members and non-voting members with voice who participate in key decisions regarding ELCA operations, teachings, and policies. Though voting members comprise both clergy and lay members, and though they come from district level synods of the church, the Assembly is not strictly speaking a representative body. ELCA polity is that voting members in Assembly embody the church as a whole and reach their decisions through attention to authoritative scripture, historic church teachings, and reasoned discernment.

As such, this approach stands aside from the purely democratic process of counting votes across the whole membership and carrying results from congregation to synod to Assembly so that the wishes of those in the pew accumulate to final representational decisions. The conciliar approach is historic in the Christian Church, originating in the process relayed in Acts 11.1-18 and archetypally in 15.1-21 whereby the church in Jerusalem first accepted the mission of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles and afterwards accepted that the rite of circumcision was not a necessary precursor to the faith of a Christian.

The ELCA formed in 1982 from three previous bodies: the American Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church in America, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches. The process of merging Lutheran bodies with various national and doctrinal origins into larger bodies has been going on for more than a hundred years. Other large Lutheran bodies, chiefly the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod continue as distinct entities. Internationally Lutherans join in the Lutheran World Federation with 140 churches from sixty-two countries.

ELCA over the years develops social statements that express the church’s teaching on various questions. Some of these include such topics as abortion, church in society, death penalty, economic life, education, environment, and race. Social statements are comprehensive articulations of an area of concern that establishes core teachings on that area and guides the church in its subsequent actions and its officers, pertinently the Presiding Bishop, in speaking on these issues.

We were observers of this historic ecclesiastical practice in its Lutheran dress during the four days that we listened, prayed, worshiped with and followed the Assembly deliberations. ELCA had much before it and in the week among other items approved establishment of the Lutheran Malaria Initiative for sub-Saharan Africa, communion with the United Methodist Church, a proposal to develop a social statement on the status of women, adopted a budget, and voted for a new vice-president and eleven new council members.

However, it’s principal items of business from the standpoint of expectation, range of viewpoints, potential departure from the past, and time given to consideration were the issues related to human sexuality and future ministry practices.

We observed these particular issues brought attendance at Assembly additional to the 1,045 voting members and others with voice, ELCA and synods’ staffs, and guests. Sitting with us in the visitors’ section were dozens of returning and intermittent observers, pro or con or undecided on the issues but intent on their outcomes as much as were the voting members. When we attended a worship service at Central Lutheran Church, organized by Goodsoil for affiliated supporters of the proposed sexuality report and ministry practices, 1500 people attended, a mix of those at Assembly and others from the surrounding area joined in common cause.

In 2001, the ELCA Assembly began the process of developing a social statement on human sexuality as the church sought to deal with a number of contemporary issues, including questions related to homosexuality. Social statements typically take some years to reach completion and action; the recent one on education (2007) took four years. This process seems overlong to some people, especially since a social statement can be directed to deciding unresolved issues, clarifying decisions, and bringing some kind of relief or desired change. The time goes from creation of a Task Force, design and development of a study, and publication of a preliminary report to study, review and comment on the interim work by members, congregations, and synods. The Task Force considers the comment received, makes further analysis and develops recommendations that in turn go out for another round of review and comment. In this particular case, the Assembly in 2007 gave the Task Force an additional charge of recommending ministry policies. The Task Force makes a final report, then heard and memorialized in Synods; that is, the synods may vote to recommend, refuse, or amend the recommendations. The ELCA Council of 33 members receives the memorials and determines how to forward them to the Assembly.

The Council also appoints an ad hoc committee to hear any further amendments and may merge, recommend or not recommend them.

Social Statement on Human Sexuality.
Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust (Feb. 19, 2009) addresses the question, “how do we understand human sexuality within the context of Jesus’ invitation to love God and love our neighbor?” The statement, therefore, starts from the Gospel and the Lutheran theological understanding of its message. We live out this message through our vocation of serving the neighbor. In terms of sexuality, relationships are built and continued on trust. God’s goodness and love show from the creation include gendered bodies and sexuality.

The biblical narratives also depict how people violate God’s trust. Nevertheless, God remains faithful. We believe that God has given the law to reveal sin and order society and to point us to God’s intentions and promises for our lives. We understand human sexuality and ethics in general to be part of God’s rule in this world, not through the Gospel in the world to come. Thus the way we order our lives, important for us as a people of faith, are not central to the fulfillment of the Gospel itself.

Set free by the death and resurrection of Christ, Christians continue in this created world, experienced no longer as a threat, but as God’s gift. In a complex world, we rely on the Scriptures, also guided by the Lutheran Confessions. We appreciate the gifts of knowledge and learning with insights through reason, imagination, the sciences, cultural understanding, and the creative arts. Thus, these deliberations related to human sexuality do not threaten the center of our faith.

[The following paragraphs are quoted directly with references given with lines cited from the original release and the later publication format with page numbers.]

Sexuality especially involves the powers or capacities to form deep and lasting bonds, to give and receive pleasure, and to conceive and bear children. Sexuality can be integral to the desire to commit oneself to life with another, to touch and be touched, and to love and be loved. Such powers are complex and ambiguous. They can be used well or badly. They can bring astonishing joy and delight. Such powers can serve God and serve the neighbor. They also can hurt self or hurt the neighbor. Sexuality finds expression at the extreme ends of human experience: in love, care, and security; or lust, cold indifference and exploitation. – lines 347-353 & page 7.

While Lutherans hold various convictions regarding lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships, this church is united on many critical issues. It opposes all forms of verbal or physical harassment and assault based on sexual orientation. It supports legislation and policies to protect civil rights and to prohibit discrimination ... It has called upon congregations and members to welcome, care for, and support same-gender couples and their families, and to advocate for their legal protection.

The ELCA recognizes that it has a pastoral responsibility to all children of God. This includes a pastoral responsibility to those who are same-gender in their orientation and to those who are seeking counsel about their sexual self-understanding. All are encouraged to avail themselves of the means of grace and pastoral care.

This church also acknowledges that consensus does not exist concerning how to regard same-gender committed relationships, even after many years of thoughtful, respectful, and faithful study and conversation. We do not have agreement on whether this church should honor these relationships, uplift, shelter and protect them, or on precisely how it is appropriate to do so.
In response, the church draws on the foundational Lutheran understanding that the baptized are called to discern God’s love in service to the neighbor. In our Christian freedom, we therefore seek responsible actions that serve others and do so with humility and deeper respect for the conscience-bound beliefs of others. We understand that, in this discernment about ethics and church practice, faithful people can and will come to different conclusions about the meaning of Scripture and about what constitutes responsible action. We further believe that this church on the basis of “the bound conscience,” will include these different understandings and practices within its life as it seeks to live out its mission and ministry in the world. - lines 612-636 & pages 10-11.

This church recognizes that
· Some are convinced that same-gender sexual behavior is sinful, contrary to biblical teaching and their understanding of natural law. See further lines 639-644.
· Some are convinced that homosexuality and even lifelong, monogamous, homosexual relationships reflect a broken world in which some relationships do not pattern themselves after the creation God intended. See further lines 646-651.
· Some are convinced that the scriptural witness does not address the context of sexual orientation and lifelong loving and committed relationships we experience today. See further lines 653-659.
· Some are convinced that the scriptural witness does not address the context of sexual orientation and committed relationships that we experience today. See further lines 661-670.

These four bullets are also found on page 11 of the revised format.

Both sexuality and trust are fundamentally relational and grow out of the web of family ties and social interaction. We must appreciate the significant influences, both positive and negative, of social forces and social contexts on human sexual behavior. The church must speak out where such forces cause harm. Seeking the Spirit’s guidance, we discern guidance for living faithfully in terms of human sexuality.

Ministry Recommendations:
Report and Recommendations on Ministry Policies (Feb. 19, 2009).
In 2005, the Task Force for the ELCA Studies on Sexuality in its first report recommended restraint from discipline regarding the question of rostering people in lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships. The Assembly declined to approve an alternate recommendation from the Church Council for rostering people in such relationships. In 2007, the Assembly asked the Task Force “specifically to address and made recommendations to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly on changes to any policies that preclude practicing homosexual persons from the rosters of this church.”

ELCA members have sharply differing conclusions on how to treat this question. Nevertheless, significant areas of agreement exist. All desire to live godly and self-giving lives in gratitude for the gifts of God. All believe that we are called to proclaim and serve God in the world. Members are committed to let the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions guide them, to lead faithful lives and support others in leading faithful lives, and to pray and work for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to be an effective instrument of God’s mission.

Therefore the four recommended steps, reported as Resolutions on Ministry Policies above. Because of varying differences on the most faithful course for the ELCA, the report includes two unsigned contrasting dissenting positions.

Discussion and Voting.
The ELCA met in Assembly from Worship on August 16 to Worship on August 23. Between those days, the Assembly had to crowd its many items of business, endeavoring to follow a timeline while allowing the full measure of participation and discussion that the voting members wanted and found possible. Pat Sween and I witnessed most of the activity from August 18 through August 21, and though not participating to the extent demanded of the members, felt emotionally drained and physically exhausted by the time we headed home and for the days after.

Presiding Bishop Hanson worked admirably to keep the proceedings on a business-like and courteous ground, but managing 1,045 voting members and all other concerns including an electronic voting system that did not always work perfectly clearly taxed him. Because worship services were daily joyous events, and because the Assembly paused often to pray and sing, the proceedings continued with great harmony and little rancor given the disputations on the issues.

Consideration of the sexuality statement and the ministry recommendations followed similar patterns. These included working in time for voting members to attend hearings, speak in alternating pro and con positions on the floor in “quasi-committee of the whole” and speak when the items came up for a vote both in the time allowed and in extending the time.

As stated previously, most of the discussion focused on the issues of same-gender relationships, what we have termed homosexuality. Two or three minute exchanges on the floor continued back and forth with almost no actual discussion; that is, what one said did not follow systematically or logically from what the previous speaker had said.

Proponents stressed the work of the church to welcome and include; many told personal stories of their own experience of being welcomed, what was possible in congregations, and the love for members who because of orientation or same-gender relationships have been excluded from ministry.

Opponents stressed that homosexuality is a sin and no biblical sources give a positive picture of it, God’s plan is for heterosexual marriage, and the basis of “bound conscience” is flawed. Arguments that base change on making people feel good or attempting to attract numbers lost during the history of the ELCA are both invalid reasons.

While some endeavored to show that Lutherans do not automatically follow scriptural dictates without reference to context – particularly in the Holiness Code of Leviticus – the proponents refrained from arguments that would theologically challenge the opponents but sought to hold forth in the area of God’s love and grace shown through Christ.

Early on, voters turned down a procedural effort that would have required a 2/3 majority on the ministry recommendations as is required constitutionally on the social statement. Efforts were made to change the recommendations or to remove them entirely, but from the first the body approved only those amendments that clarified wording or made procedural changes that they regarded as reasonable and productive of greater agreement.

When the social statement passed by the bare 2/3 it required, members passed the implementing resolutions by 70.92%. When 72.64% agreed to place resolution 3 on ministry first, 77.02% voted for it passage. When resolution 2 passed by 60.63% and 3 by 55.35%, 68.48% voted for the implementation measures. These voting patterns show a good measure of cohesion and willingness to provide for the realization in practice of what is begun in principle.

Certainly, an undertow of protest existed, best seen in the votes for Vice President of the ELCA in which the major challenger in the final ballot, Ryan Schwarz, spoke of his opposition to the church’s changing stands on same-gender relationships.

Conclusion.
Pat Sween and I feel fortunate to have participated, even from the sidelines, in this historic event. We come away with renewed hope for the future, with acceptance of the burdens we now bear for those of conscience other than our persuasion, and for the challenges ahead in being faithful and socially active. As a very good friend wrote to me, “you will learn that living for justice is much harder than voting for it.”

Thanks to Pat Sween for her assistance on the report, to Katharine Sween, Scott Heins and their children, who accommodated us for four nights, and to the many friends and new acquaintances who shared the days with us.