August 11, 2007

I am back in my room, set to write a reflection piece on this assembly which I hope— technology cooperating—some of you may see before you gather in your churches for worship in the morning. I’m half amused, half dismayed, and half perplexed by what I already see posted as news reports from this assembly. I’ll try to do some sorting out for you.

What happened at the assembly in a nutshell
First, contrary to some news postings, sexuality and ministry wasn’t the only thing we talked about by any means. Former bishop of the Saint Paul Area Synod, Mark Hanson, was re-elected on the second ballot to a second term, with a resounding 86 percent vote! And in the far more dramatic election, attorney David Swartling of Seattle was elected to succeed the only secretary the ELCA has had in its 20 years, the Rev. Lowell Almen. David Swartling is a delightful, warm, intelligent, deeply spiritual, and deeply involved person of faith. In addition, voting members worshiped; we committed ourselves to a far-reaching emphasis on deepening our church’s immersion in Scripture; we deliberated Iraq and the Middle East; we adopted a social statement on education; and we took on new resolve in fighting the HIV-AIDS pandemic. We celebrated rapid growth in responding to world hunger and disasters and pledged to do even more. In short, we celebrated the vast array of ministries we do together as a church, and it’s a wonderful sight! It was a fine assembly. 

The sexuality discussion
Now to unpack the sexuality discussion. I said I was amused, dismayed, and perplexed by news reports. Beth Helgen sent me the collection of headlines already posted online. Here are two headlines that were listed:

• “Lutherans to Allow Pastors in Gay Relationships”

• “Lutherans Don’t Change on Gays” 

Any wonder people might be confused? Let me set the background, and quickly walk you through what unfolded and what, sound bytes aside, we actually did. 

The Background
In 2001 the Churchwide Assembly (CWA) set in place a task force to bring back recommendations to the 2005 CWA regarding blessing same-gender relationships and ordaining faithfully partnered gay clergy and to bring a social statement on human sexuality to the 2009 CWA. The 2005 CWA received three recommendations on these issues, and in response (1) voted to “continue to find ways to live together faithfully in the face of our differences,” (might be a paraphrase, but close); (2) let the matter of blessings be a matter of local pastoral care and did not establish such a rite for the whole church; and (3) decided against allowing partnered gay and lesbian clergy to be ordained and serve in the church.

The general expectation was that these matters would again be discussed in 2009 in connection with the social statement. However, last winter a discipline committee in Atlanta, in acting to remove a partnered gay pastor, recommended that synods memorialize this assembly to change policy. So it was before us again. Twenty-one synods (including both the Saint Paul Area and Minneapolis Area Synods) took actions asking that the process for such change be set in motion. 

What Happened
The memorials committee bundled these resolutions together and recommended that they simply be referred as information to the task force in their deliberations leading up to 2009. Not surprisingly, a substitute motion was made on the floor reflecting the 21-synod request to set in motion a change in policy. (Now here’s where you should pay attention if you’re trying to sort out what news sound bytes are saying in different directions!) 

After lengthy debate, both in a non-legislative “committee of the whole” and formal parliamentary proceedings, the assembly defeated the motion to change policy, and instead supported the recommendation to simply refer all this to the task force working on the social statement. The motion to change the policy failed 450-581. 

Then a motion was made to allow a process of exceptions to the policy for the sake of mission in local situations, patterned after the exception process to the requirement of ordination by a bishop. This exception proposal was also rejected, 472-520. 

So it was clear the assembly was staying with the process to come forward with a social statement in 2009, and not to consider any change in policy until such a statement is adopted and policy is made consistent with that statement. So the study process continues. (An amending action was taken to specifically ask the social statement to address these matters.) 

Then, on a later set of memorials, the assembly passed a motion which is the basis for the news reports suggesting ELCA policy has changed. An action was taken in which the assembly “prays, urges, and encourages synods, synodical bishops, and the presiding bishop to refrain from or demonstrate restraint in disciplining those” congregations and pastors that are out of compliance with the existing policy. Bishop Hanson was asked if this was in conflict with existing governing documents, and Secretary Almen explained that it was not. 

This is, frankly, where reporters not familiar with the nuances of ELCA governing documents got it all wrong. Our documents regarding discipline have within them a number of possibilities of response to policy non-compliance, including personal consultation, admonition, formal charges, and suspension, with few timelines and no “sentencing guidelines” (to use the secular image). The effect of this action is not to give permission to defy policy, but to ask that as bishops and others ponder responses to these situations, that they lean in the direction of a less harsh rather than a more harsh response. 

So What Does This Mean?
My sound byte, were someone to ask, would be this: This assembly chose to stay with the process we’ve put in place that will lead us to a far reaching (i.e., much broader than simply homosexuality) discussion of human sexuality in 2009, and in that light we will consider these policy matters. Until that time, the assembly said, let’s stay with current policy, and let’s walk gently with each other. 

It was an action, I believe, that honored the most strongly supported action of two years ago: our commitment to find ways to live together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements. It was a respectful expression of our commitment to continue to find ways to be a church together. 

Which brings me to the final image I want to share. The image comes from the “committee of the whole” open discussion, where long lines of people stood at the microphones waiting to express their views. Since CWA rules indicate we alternate speaking pro-and-con, a set of two microphones stands at each station—one green, one red. I looked at the microphones closest to me and saw Saint Paul Area Synod voting members standing in both lines. I was proud of that. We’ve been together enough to enjoy and respect each other, and we went to different lines. And then we worshiped together, ate together, did other work together. This synod—and this church—is not simply a red line synod or a green line. We are church together. We can commit ourselves to living together, faithfully. 

I hope these comments are helpful. You would be proud of the people you sent, for their hard work and good spirit. I am grateful for our ministry together.

Peter Rogness