I blogged earlier about the ELCA Conference of Bishops that met early in October.  Each of the sixty-five regional synods is headed by a bishop.  These bishops form the Conference of Bishops, and they are advisory to the Church Council, which in turn serves as the Churchwide governing body between the biennial Churchwide assemblies where the voting members hold ultimate authority over ELCA policy. 

The early October Conference considered revisions to Ministry Policies in response to the actions of the Churchwide Assembly in August.  That is, the 2009 Convention actions were in the nature of broad policy statements with implementation of the policy to be left to the Conference of Bishops and the Church Council.  The Conference considered changes but deferred final action.  Some, including Lutheran Core, called for the draft documents to be made public in the meantime, and the ELCA concurred.  The documents are now available online.

The key portion of the existing policy reads:

Ordained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships.

Contrast that with the draft language:

Ordained ministers, whether single, married or in a publicly accountable, lifelong
monogamous, same-gender relationship, are expected to uphold an understanding of
marriage and family in their public ministry as well as in private life that is biblically
informed and consistent with the teachings of this church.

Should an ordained minister decide to marry or to enter a publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationship, the counsel and guidance of the synodical bishop is to be sought and the minister shall make the decision known among those he or she serves.

Ordained ministers in a publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationship are expected to keep that relationship inviolate until death, to cultivate love and respect for their same-gender partner, and to seek counseling with their partner when it is needed. It is recognized that due to human sin and brokenness, in some cases such a relationship may have to be dissolved. Should an ordained minister and partner seek to end their relationship, the counsel and guidance of the synodical bishop is to be sought. Similarly, should the ordained minister, following the ending of the relationship, decide to enter another such relationship, the counsel and guidance of the synodical bishop is to be sought.

An ordained minister who is in a publicly accountable lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationship recognized and supported by an expression of this church is expected to live in fidelity to his or her partner, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a publicly accountable relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful.

 

A footnote elaborates and defines key terms:

The terms in the phrase “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender
relationship” are intended to have their common meanings. “Lifelong” means that the
relationship is intended to last as long as both parties to the relationship shall live.
“Monogamous” means that the relationship is between two people—one to one. “Same-gender” means that the relationship is between two men or two women. “Public accountability” means that the two parties to the relationship openly acknowledge the relationship, have a demonstrable commitment to the relationship, and have a willingness to seek and accept the aid of individuals and community in sustaining the relationship. For an ordained minister, both church and community are part of the public to which he or she is accountable. Public accountability for an ordained minister in a heterosexual marriage includes recognition and support in a congregation of this church and legally recorded civil recognition. Similarly, public accountability for an ordained minister in a lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationship includes recognition and support in a congregation of this church and may include a legally recorded civil recognition and other evidence that the relationship is lifelong and monogamous. The ELCA social statement “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” recognizes that within this church diverse convictions about homosexuality and about the rostered service of people in same-gender relationships are faithfully held on the basis of Scripture. The ELCA intends both to allow the rostered service of people who are in a publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationship and to provide for those whose convictions do not favor such service.

Remember, these changes are not yet in effect, and the draft documents may be changed before final approval, which is not expected for several months.

#ELCA, #CWA09, #LMCACORE

ELCA Lutherans met in Minneapolis during the third week in August for their 2009 biennial Churchwide Assembly.  In the midst of the convention, on Friday, August 21, Lutheran Core (the organized opposition to pro-LGBT policies) issued a press release condemning the approval of  revamped ministry policies that authorized the ordination of gay clergy and “support and recognition” of committed same-gender couples.  The press release renounced Lutheran Core’s formal relationship to the ELCA and called for a financial boycott of the ELCA.

Lutheran CORE leaders are inviting faithful Lutheran congregations and individuals to direct funding away from the national church body because of the decisions made this week by the Churchwide Assembly. Lutheran CORE will participate in and support faithful ELCA ministries, but, cannot support ELCA ministries that reject the authority of God’s Word.

An earlier blog post asked “Who bears the burden of withheld funds?” and contained a letter from an ELCA mission congregation pastor concerned that his multi-ethnic startup would be jeopardized.  The issue has not abated, and the Rev. Stephen P. Bouman recently submitted an open letter to Core in which he asks, “Will you be serious about mission?” Bouman is executive director for the ELCA’s Evangelical Outreach and Congregational Mission. Bouman attended the recent Core Convocation a couple of weeks ago.

Bouman called his experience at the meeting “sobering.” He said he attended the meeting to listen and to “make sure that unintended consequences of withdrawal from mission support as a means of protest do not hurt” the “precious missions of our church.”

“I want to say as publicly and as strongly as possible that exactly the opposite is true,” he said. “I want to beseech Lutheran CORE to build your witness and your organization around truthful conversation and not on caricatures of your church body or unfounded fear.”

Are funds being redirected or merely withheld?  Does the Core boycott merely justify the human tendency to hoard and not share?  If funds are redirected from synod benevolence to Lutheran Core, what does Core do with the money?  Does it go to mission or ministry, or does it merely go to the development of Core’s own power base and infrastructure?  What is Core’s motivation behind their boycott?  Is it missional or selfish?  We note that Core’s website now offers a functionality for an online credit card donation to Core (administered by WordAlone).  Follow the money.

ELCA presiding Bishop, Mark Hanson, posed an equally ominous challenge a few weeks ago:

Although these actions [withholding funds] are promoted as a way to signal opposition to churchwide assembly actions or even to punish the voting members who made them, the result will be wounds that we inflict on ourselves, our shared life, and our mission in Christ.

But the financial news is not all bad.  Some ELCA congregations, including my own, are considering an increase in their synod benevolence.  Others are finding other ways to look outward rather than inward with congregational funds.

Augusta Victoria Hospital, a medical facility of the Lutheran World Federation on the Mount of Olives in East Jerusalem, and a food pantry near Madison, Wis., were ministries “outside of our building” that inspired the 1,000-member St. Stephen Lutheran Church, Monona, Wis., to tithe money it is raising to fix the church roof, said its pastor, the Rev. Nicholas G. Utphall.

“Fixing our roof and paying our mortgage are certainly important details in the life of our congregation, and those necessities have come to serve as a reminder of the larger mission we are about here,” he said. “The news of congregations withholding money makes it seem very appropriate.”

[I]t is also important to recognize the vast extent of what our dollars do in this church,” Utphall said. “There is so much vital social and gospel work done by this church in this country and around the world that there is simply no way to know everything that we are doing as the ELCA. We regularly hear people say that they are proud to be a part of this church and its work,” he said.

In previous posts, I discussed the article of retired theologian, James Nestingen, in which he charged that the ELCA is no longer a church.  Thus, ELCA members are now “unchurched” according to Nestingen.  I started my earlier post with a folksy fish story Nestingen once told involving a boatload of whoppers.  Today, I write about a different type of Nestingen “whopper”.

The Nestingen article first appeared on the WordAlone website, but it has now made its way to the Lutheran Core website.  By posting the article, Lutheran Core endorses its hyperbole, exaggerations, and outright falsehoods.  Much of his article is dedicated to de-legitimizing the actions of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly regarding same-gender relationships.  Dissatisfied with the voting results, he criticizes the voters.  And the procedures.  And the leadership.  He twists the facts.  He falsely accuses interested parties of intimidation.  But he never, never considers that his might be the minority view, and that his side lost the elections, fair and square.

The truth is that the 1,045 voting members at the assembly were elected nationwide by local conferences and regional synods.  Most of them were laity.  Nestingen referred to these dedicated individuals and their 2009 Assembly votes as “a naked power play by the privileged—the few allowed some actual voice in the proceedings.”

His words drip with contempt for the 65 elected bishops, the presiding bishop, and other leadership: “national officials along with the bishops do whatever they can to stage manage the assemblies, thereby moving the voting members in their own direction.  The ELCA has made such power mongering official procedure and policy.”

I’m a retired trial lawyer, and I understand the importance of the rules of evidence, but it appears Nestingen the theologian does not, even though he claims, “Rules of evidence, the normal standards for disciplined consideration go right out the window.” His article is then rife with inadmissable hearsay.   “According to second hand reports,” he says.  “In fact, while the evidence has been difficult to come by,” he admits.  He also relies upon “whispered apprehensions to sympathetic ears.”

There is also something in the rules of evidence about truth telling, and Nestingen appears to overlook that minimal requirement as well.  There are two statements in his article that are blatantly false.

First, he said, “while the gay advocates freely use the microphones, those who are opposed remain conspicuously silent.”  Say what?  Were you there, Dr. Nestingen?  If you were there or watched the live stream of the proceedings, did you not see the two lines behind the red and green microphones where the speakers were alternated between those for and those against?  If you did not witness this personally, either live or via feed, whose hearsay report are you relying upon?

And then there’s this slanderous falsehood, “the hallways and the back of the assembly fill up with gay advocates bussed in to influence the voters using, commonly enough, intimidation up to and including physical threats.”  Physical threats, Dr. Nestingen?  “Commonly enough,” as if physical intimidation was the order of the day? 

Again, I must ask, were you there Dr. Nestingen?  I was, and I am willing to state unequivocally that your charges are false.  I was a Goodsoil volunteer, Dr. Nestingen, and you bear false witness against me. 

There was no bussing.  I drove to the assembly at my own expense, and while there may have been some car pooling, there was no bussing.  People like me volunteered to come to the assembly, we came at our own expense to help in whatever way we could: prayer vigils, distributing materials, singing, or helping with Goodsoil’s facility at the assembly.  Many incurred airfare and hotel costs. 

More importantly, there was not a single incident of intimidation that I witnessed or participated in.  To the contrary, we were constantly reminded to be courteous and polite.  All volunteers received training in “graceful engagement”.  Each and every Goodsoil volunteer that I met exhibited a kind heart and generous spirit as they attempted to exhibit “bound conscience” respect toward all.

Hear the words of Emily Eastwood, executive director of Lutherans Concerned / North America and Goodsoil leader,

It is both disappointing and dismaying that there are those, responding to their anger and pain, who seek to enflame passions against us and against the church through inaccuracies, exaggerations, and lies about what took place, why it took place, and what it means.  That this rhetoric is neither corrected nor curtailed by those in positions to do so among those opposed to the decisions makes those leaders complicit in the spread of untruths.

I understand that there are those who mightily disagree with the actions of the 2009 ELCA assembly.  I also understand that they steadfastly believe they are right.  However, such self assurance does not justify unbridled self righteousness that tilts toward demagoguery.

Yesterday, I reported on the ELCA Conference of Bishops and the address of Presiding Bishop, Mark Hanson.  There were substantive measures accomplished as well at the Conference.

At the 2009 Churchwide assembly in August, the ELCA approved a 32 page sexuality statement, which is a broad policy document but without specific procedures.  Similarly, the Convention approved a new ministry policy that will allow congregations to “recognize and support” persons in a “lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationship” and to allow such persons to become ordained clergy, but without specific implementing procedures.  The task of implementing these broad policy statements falls to the Conference of Bishops and the Church Council.

A related question is the status of nearly twenty LGBT clergy who serve ELCA parishes but without official status or recognition.  Such congregations were often censured by the ELCA, and several were actually expelled from the ELCA during the ‘90s.  I previously blogged about these extra ordinem ordinations and congregations.

The Conference of Bishops received letters from Rev. Gerald B. Kieschnick, the President of the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church (LCMS), and Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory, President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops, which encouraged the Conference to refrain from implementing any marriage equality and gay clergy policies, despite the actions of the assembly in August.  These letters evince a lack of understanding about ELCA authority.  The ELCA Churchwide assembly–over a thousand voting members, chosen from conferences and synods around the country, consisting of both laity and clergy–is the ultimate authority in the democratic polity of the ELCA.  Decisions are not made top down by the presiding Bishop nor by the Conference of Bishops nor by the Church Council.  For the Conference of Bishops to ignore the will of the Churchwide assembly would be a serious breach of its authority, and the pleas from the LCMS and the Conference of Catholic Bishops are not merely “stick your nose in our business” interference, but they encourage the Council of Bishops to impose a hierarchy inconsistent with the ELCA constitution.

To their credit, the bishops meeting in conference ignored these pleas and moved forward with the business of the church.  Regarding the extra ordinem clergy, a committee of bishops was formed to engage these extra ordinem pastors and to report back to the Conference of Bishops in time for the January 2010 Academy meeting of the bishops. 

Regarding the implementation of ministry policies, the bishops “requested to see the changes being made to Vision and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline before they are sent to the Church Council for action.  This will put those changes to the bishops in time for their meeting in March, prior to the April meeting of the Church Council,”  according to a press release from Lutherans Concerned North America (LC/NA), the LGBT advocacy group within the ELCA.

Here is the official news release from the ELCA:

The Conference of Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) reviewed and discussed drafts of possible revisions to ELCA ministry policies during their Oct. 1-6 meeting here. As a result of their discussions, the bishops requested they have another opportunity to review updated revisions, likely to mean that final action on new policy language will not occur before April 2010.

The Conference of Bishops is an advisory body of the church, consisting of the ELCA’s 65 synod bishops, the presiding bishop and secretary.

The 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, which met in August in Minneapolis, directed the church to revise its ministry policies. One revision will make it possible for Lutherans in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationships to serve as ELCA associates in ministry, clergy, deaconesses and diaconal ministers. The assembly also adopted a social statement on human sexuality.

The Rev. Stanley N. Olson, executive director, ELCA Vocation and Education, said the drafts were the result of collaborative work between staff of the Office of the Secretary, Vocation and Education, and the Committee on Appeals. An implementing resolution in the social statement affects the ELCA Board of Pensions work, he said.

Emily Eastwood, Executive Director of LC/NA, said,

Though we are disappointed that resolution could not be had in time for the November Church Council meeting, the discussions of the bishops were thorough, thoughtful, and revealed a commitment to moving forward to implementation of the decisions of the 2009 assembly.  We went to the meeting of the bishops as a solid coalition of ELM, Goodsoil and Lutherans Concerned/North America.  We are pleased that progress has been made, and that there is a commitment to resolution in time for the April 2010 Church Council meeting.  Particularly, we are pleased that at long last we are being talked with, instead of just being talked about. (emphasis added)

Meanwhile, opponents of the August assembly actions are calling for release of the text of proposed changes and other information for broad church discussion prior to implementation.  Such a request is appropriate, and there is an indication that the ELCA website will soon post detailed information.

The ELCA Conference of Bishops will wrap up its October meeting today.  Each of the 65 Synod bishops serves on the conference, which functions in an advisory capacity.  The biennial churchwide assembly serves as the ultimate legislative authority of the church; the recent assembly actions approving support and recognition of persons in “lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships” and allowing ordination of such persons has been the focal point of the meeting of the bishops and of the address delivered by Presiding Bishop, Mark Hanson.  “It’s a rocky time” in the ELCA, he said.

The most pressing issue is financial due to a combination of a down economy and the call from the opposition group, Lutheran Core, for a financial boycott of the ELCA.  One must ask what theological or moral justification exists for such a boycott, which smacks of childish spite. Hanson implicitly questioned the Core boycott when he pointed out that those who supported the recent assembly actions had long been the minority in the church, but they nevertheless continued as loyal benefactors of the church.

Hanson noted that members who wanted the policy change wondered for years where they stood in the ELCA.  They remained faithful, stayed engaged in the church and generously supported its mission. Some increased their giving, he said.

Hanson said the Core financial boycott:

would adversely affect many ministries, such as planting and renewing congregations, grants and mission personnel assignments to global partner churches, and grants to Lutheran partners, agencies and institutions. Reductions would also affect the ELCA’s capacity to be engaged in mission, he said.

Because of current economic conditions and uncertainty about mission-support funds, the churchwide organization is involved in contingency financial planning, as are many synods, Hanson said. For 2009 the churchwide organization will continue a partial hiring freeze and underspend its current budget allocation by 5 percent “if necessary,” he said.  Hanson also said churchwide leaders are developing “models for reducing expenses in the 2010 budget.” A revised spending plan for 2010 will be presented at next month’s meeting of the ELCA Church Council, the church’s board of directors, Hanson said.