|
"So, how was the trip?" I've been asked this many times since returning from the ELCA Church Wide Assembly in Orlando, August 8-14. Each time I struggle to know how to answer. I have many reactions to the time spent there. As you may imagine, I met many, many fine people and had many conversations with other voting members. Each person I visited with was kind, gracious and pretty easy to visit with, even though we often had come to very different conclusions on several matters of great importance. "So, how was the trip?" Well, the good news, from my perspective, is we chose not to affirm the third recommendation of the church council concerning ordaining non-celibate homosexuals. I'd like to back up and let you know some of the mechanics of our denominational organization. I was one of 1,015 people out of 1018 possible. So you can see, there was an excellent turnout. We came from all 65 different synods. South Dakota had 24 Voting Members representing eight conferences. Ours is the "Crossroads Conference". It includes Grand Valley to our south, but not Moe Parish, goes as far west as Hartford or Humboldt and about as far north as Dell Rapids or Baltic and of course includes Sioux Falls. We were elected in the spring of 2004 at a conference meeting. At that meeting I was chosen as an alternate. This past March I learned that a man elected was not able to serve, so I moved into his position. As the day approached when I would be attending the CWA, I wondered what it would be like and had uneasiness about the whole affair. I would like to thank all of you for your prayers for us voting members before, during and after the convention. I am still deeply troubled by the ELCA's direction and would ask that you keep on praying. You need to know that we are called "voting members" not delegates. This is because we represent different geographic areas, but were repeatedly told that we were to "vote our conscience" not necessarily with input from our local church, conference, or synod. This way of doing things became apparent on the day the local election took place. Each person was merely asked to stand and be recognized. Then just before the vote, someone asked if each person could say a few words about their views especially since we had some big issues before us. So we each spoke briefly and the election was held. This was not the intended way. It was intended that we vote blindly for our voting member unless, of course, we happen to know them personally. It is clear that there are others also who did not think it was appropriate for each person to simply "vote their conscience". The SD synod assembly and many other synod assemblies passed resolutions disapproving the resolutions on homosexuality and asking us to "prayerfully consider the sense of their synod when voting…" There is, of course, another problem in "voting our conscience". One's conscience can and does sometimes lie to us. The conscience is not a reliable source of truth. We Christians have something infinitely more reliable. In early July, Bishop Andrea invited all 24 Voting Members from SD to her office for a meeting. About half were able to attend. As the discussion progressed, it became obvious that nearly all of us were opposed to the resolutions blessing homosexual relationships and ordaining non-celibate homosexuals. However, two of the three who vocalized support for these changes were pastors. The other was the wife of one of those pastors. I engaged one of the pastors in a discussion about the authority of scripture for what we believe and teach. He informed me that the Bible is the "living Word" which, to him, meant that our "life experience" and the knowledge of today's experts must inform our understanding of scripture and (my conclusion) thus overrule the clear and straightforward wording we have in our bibles as well as 2000 years of church history. I knew it was going to be an interesting week. The evening I got to the Assembly we had our first plenary to set the rules for the week. Those advocating the homosexuality proposals made several efforts to change the rules. These would have lowered the number of votes needed to pass resolutions. Ultimately, no major changes were made. This plenary was to have ended at 9 pm but lasted until 11:45. I want to inject here that Bishop Hanson did an outstanding job of conducting the meetings all week long. Although he certainly would have liked to have seen the homosexuality proposals pass, one would never have noticed any bias. Throughout the week we voted on several issues besides the homosexuality related ones. You can get very detailed information on the elca.org/assembly/05/ web site. If you wish, you can also watch recordings of all of our meetings and read the minutes. Since most people are only aware of the sexuality proposals, I'll start there. A couple of days before we voted on the sexuality proposals, there was a forum where anyone could come to the microphone and speak about the topic for two minutes. This was an opportunity for the general public to speak and it was attended by the press. Many people spoke articulately both for and against the proposals. It was all very civil and orderly. At that meeting were not only self described gays and lesbians, but also transgender and bisexuals advocating for full acceptance. There were three recommendations from the church council. This was the culmination of a process that began in 1993. The first recommendation was a call to "unity in the midst of disagreement". It needed a majority and passed by about 85%. Some of us that voted against it said that we are united under the authority and blood of Christ only and our unity is threatened by those who would have us rely on any source other than scripture and the confessions for our doctrine. Recommendation Two passed by 62% after several attempts failed that would have made it clear whether or not it would be acceptable to "bless" same sex couples. The current wording has been used by some pastors to "bless", "marry" and give "premarital counseling" to homosexual couples since 1993 using a broad definition of "pastoral care". Recommendation Two disappointed people on either side of the issue, but perhaps more so Reconciling in Christ congregations. These are congregations who are already "blessing" homosexual couples and have been for years. They wanted a more clear approval. Their website lists (24 of the 65) over one third of the synods as members as well as over 200 congregations all within the ELCA. Some of them are Lutheran colleges where some of our children attend. I invite you to read for yourself from their web site. lcna.org/ric.shtm I found it very interesting that the assembly steadfastly refused to make it clear, whether some avenue of blessing of homosexual couples was appropriate or not. Recommendation Three failed to get the 2/3 needed for passage. It did, however, get the support of nearly half of the voting members. This recommendation would have allowed ordaining non-celibate gays and lesbians in self described "committed" relationships. There were 18 amendments proposed, but in the end we voted on the original wording. You may have heard that the voting assembly was invaded by protesters the afternoon we took the "big" vote. The meeting room was large enough for all 1018 voting members in the center area. We each needed to show our credentials to be allowed into that area. On each side of the room and served by huge TV screens were areas large enough for several hundred visitors. At some point, about 100 protesters took down the fence and stood below the podium and across the whole stage area. Some of the protesters were also voting members. They created quite a stir at first. A couple of efforts were made to get them to leave or to suspend our business until they left, but in the end we all realized it would just give them the attention they wanted and delay the assembly agenda. Bishop Hanson handled this well, I thought. He said that experience as a father of six had taught him that sometimes the best way to handle childishness is just to ignore it. |
I'd like to inject here a little of the atmosphere of the assembly. Our meetings were held in the same hotel in which nearly everyone stayed. As we walked to meetings, the halls were usually lined with people wearing rainbow colored stoles. These symbolized their desire to see the homosexuality proposals pass. They were polite and quiet. Some days they handed out a flyer or a small gift or symbol for us to wear. Many carried large pictures of homosexual couples or signs that read, "Let me tell you my story." The clear implication was that if you only knew how "good" these relationships are, and how oppressed homosexuals are, you would certainly vote to end the "discrimination". One man approached me and we visited cordially for five minutes or more. I think he chose me because I was wearing a button that simply said,"Thy Word is Truth". He said that, "What God had declared clean, we shouldn't continue to consider unclean". I respectfully replied that I thought his application was taking the verse out of context. I later learned that some of the protesters were not necessarily Lutheran or even Christian. Most are part of groups called "Soulforce" and "Goodsoil", both advocating for homosexual acceptance within the church. They come to various mainline church conventions and have for years. You can learn more about them at their web sites: Goodsoil.org and soulforce.org Earlier this summer each voting member received three very professionally produced DVD's from the pro homosexual lobby. I also had conversations with others, both here in Canton Lutheran and elsewhere, who favored the same-sex proposals. Without exception, a major part of their plea was an emotional appeal based on life experience rather than scripture. We each also received a letter from one congregation and a book from another congregation who chose to make their views known. I had to admire their effort to have a discussion, find out what position their congregation wanted to take ,if any, and send the letter and book. Other elements of the atmosphere in which we voted were the daily bible study and sermons intended to influence how we would vote. For example, in one bible study the chairman of the sexuality task force chose to focus on some verses from Genesis 32. The point of the lesson was Jacob demanding of the angel, "I won't let you go unless you bless me." Clearly we voting members were to approve the homosexual proposals. Nearly all of the daily bible studies and sermons followed this pattern of taking scripture out of context in order to influence our vote. One evening everyone was invited to a worship service to "celebrate the gift of homosexuality". At goodsoil.org, I read that it was well attended. There are a few other major issues that I think you should know about. The first is Renewing Worship. This is a new worship book and hymnal. Although attempts were made to delay this project, in the end it passed by about 75%. Renewing Worship is to be a replacement for our green hymnal. The new color is red. It contains about ten new worship settings, new liturgies for various life events, and several new hymns and many revisions of old hymns. One reason many objected to it is that what we voted on is not yet a finished product. We voted to give the Bishop's office blanket authority as to what it will contain. There is reason for concern. One marriage service made no reference to husband and wife or man and woman. This proposal has since been withdrawn. We were shown several of the worship settings at our daily worship services. Some would be fine options. Some settings were similar to an Episcopal or Catholic service. Most people who had been in on the testing of the liturgies were apparently pleased. Another very important aspect of the project is the content of the hymns and the changes in wording. The language of many hymns has been changed to be more "inclusive". That means that male pronouns have been eliminated in about seventy hymns as well as many references to God as our Father, King, Lord, or Master. You can read more about this at renewingworship.org. This is the website from the ELCA. Another site that compares the new and old and shows concern for the changes in hymn texts is worshiphymn.org. Another major issue before the CWA was the Churchwide Restructuring. This also was approved by over 80%. Among other things, a new Division has been created. It is called the Division for Multicultural ministries and promotes multicultural ministries into a program unit on the same level as global mission and evangelism. One major reason to restructure is financial. Giving to the ELCA has remained relatively constant since 1991. Governance- There was quite a bit of discussion on governance. Currently all candidates for the church council are chosen by a nominating committee elected at the CWA. I had the opportunity to vote for people to serve on this, but I knew nothing that would even hint at their values. (This is the process that gave us a council who voted 31-2 for the homosexuality proposals while only 22% of the people in the pews favor those proposals.) A motion for each synod to choose its own church council member was rejected. Another motion that failed would have given each synod a council member. Currently there are 33 for the 65 synods. At least six Bishops spoke in favor of this change. They and others feel that there is a "disconnect" between the national church and the local churches. A requirement that at least two of the council members be under 30 years of age was approved. I would like to comment on the election. We received a ballot with 104 offices to fill and from 2-4 candidates for each office. We were provided biographies of each nominee, but had no information about their values or views. I found it difficult to vote for people I know next to nothing about. I was afraid I might vote for someone who holds very different values than I do. In the end a couple of SD people were elected including Pastor Jeff Sorenson, from the Bishop's office. He will now be on the church council for a six year term. Also elected was Paul Rasmussen of Sioux Falls. He is now on the new Board for Vocation and Education. There were two other resolutions approved that I think you should be aware of. The first was a move toward a closer relationship with the United Methodist Church. It is called "Interim Eucharistic Sharing". The second was a strongly worded statement on the conflict between Israel and Palestine. It condemns Israel and supports the Palestinians. It is called Peace not Walls. Budget- ELCA members continue to give well to ELCA World Hunger and some information I found showed modest increases the last two years in unrestricted giving. The budget is tied to the restructuring proposal since one motivation for restructuring is the steady to lower unrestricted giving for the past decade or more. Congregations are giving, as much or more than they used to, but are choosing to give directly, rather than through the ELCA. One last thing: Before I left I had 4 forums for members of our congregation to let me know their thoughts on several of the major issues to be voted on in Orlando. A total of 20-25 people attended. Several people have also called me. We've had good discussion. You need to know that people have strong views. One person has told me that they would probably be looking for a new church home if the homosexuality related resolutions did not pass. Another told me that his family was prepared to leave if they did pass. The vast majority are very troubled by the direction the ELCA is moving. I would strongly encourage our congregation visit more about this. I believe not doing so will only hurt our witness. I encourage you to read more on the various websites. Respectfully submitted, John Ostraat |