Ordination

[Brad Everett]

In less than 24 hours and four votes the ELCIC has changed not just its teaching on sexuality but made provision to radically alter its practices in that area.
The ELCIC now allows for not just "same-sex marriage" but for homosexuals in relationships to be ordained and serve by a vote of 205 to 114.

At this point it has been a long couple of days. For the sake of mental health and not having to apologize or retract something written in anger or grief I'll delay posting more until later.

[Pari Bailey]

Oh, Brad.

God be with you.

P+

[Bergs]

Thank you for your reporting on this event.  Your reports were well done and appreciated by many.

Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

[BHughes]

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       James 1:27
Prayers for you and all those about to enter the crucible, may the smelting process leave your faith stronger ...

[Brad Everett]

Yesterday's "debate" on the motion to permit individuals in same-sex relationships to be ordained was sad to watch.
For one thing, the motion itself demonstrated how a particular hermeneutic has developed in the ELCIC and over the years colored how people read, speak and hear. The motion reads:

MOVED that convention actions NC-1993-16 and NC-1989-96 be rescinded and that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada in convention adopt the following policy:
It is the policy of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada that sexual orientation is not in itself a factor which disqualifies a candidate for rostered ministry or a rostered minister seeking a call. Candidates and rostered ministers are in all cases expected to adhere to the qualifications and standards as set out in the constitution and bylaws of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada and of the synod within which they serve. Synods and congregations are expected to evaluate candidates for ordination or consecration and rostered ministers for call in accordance with a conscience informed by the Gospel, the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. Thus the matter devolves into a discusison of rights.

The Convention actions being rescinded concerned acceptance and affirmation of a statement of the Conference of Bishops that said a person homosexual in orientation could be ordained but was expected to be chaste.
Yet the motion and most of the comments yesterday made it sound like it was the orientation that barred one from ordination when in fact it was a lack of chasteness that prevented ordination. But of course by this time the talk is framed in terms of "orientation" i.e. who people are, how God created them etc. totally missing the fact that neither Scripture nor the Confessions never talks about orientation but about acts, what people do.

There was no discussion of theology whatsoever. Speaking for the motion was a host of anecdotes of really great and gifted people excluded from ministry because they were non-chaste homosexuals and how the ELCIC was missing out. Some who spoke against the motion seemed resigned to the fact it was going to pass and so wanted some assurance or explanation how this motion would work in practice e.g. a congregation doesn't agree with the ordination of partnered homosexuals, but can't ask candidates if they are in or pursuing such a relationship, so how does that work? Long story short, the FOD Committee hadn't really thought any of that through, seeming to take the approach that it would be figured out as the went along.

When a delegate asked why the Bishops' themselves hadn't brought forward the motion to rescind resolutions affirming their 1989 statement the FOD reps said that NCC had asked their committee to come up with the motion, but assured the convention that the Bishops did review the motion and that "the bishops are on board with this" (but I have some doubts about that).

However the Eastern Synod bishop did get up to a microphone to speak in favor of the motion. He appealed to a a hermeneutic of effect i.e. judging a position by its effects. On that basis he said nothing good has come from the ELCIC's current [or used to be] policy on this issue. He referenced witnessing broken lives, families, congregations and substance abuse, which is what happens, he said, when you demand celibacy from those not gifted with it.
It appears the bishop doesn't understand the difference between chastity and celibacy—sad but not surprising.

I think the bishop may have inadvertently stumbled on something here. Let's judge something by its effects i.e. it will be interesting to look back in a few months and years to see what effects this Convention and its decisions created.

[Bergs]

The argument for trying this innovation to see what the effect is has 2 major drawbacks that really invalidate the whole argument.  First is that one can already measure the effect of the innovation.  Just look at the UCC and Episcopalians.  Those examples destroy the argument.  Second is if the policy doesn't work, can you realy put that toothpaste back in the tube?

Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

[Edward Engelbrecht]

Bergs, are you referring a numerical decline in those denoms or some other metric?

[Bergs]

Well I was primarily thinking of membership and numbers of congregations.  But what major metric has increased in the UCC since 1980?  They are smaller, older, whiter, etc. 

Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

[Brad Everett]

"If the policy doesn't work?"

After the rhetoric I heard the last few days and have heard and read over the last 10 years, I seriously doubt if the leadership of the ELCIC would have a clue if it didn't work because the goal has been simple—change the teaching and practice of the ELCIC.
Back in 2007 when the issue last came up, the then National Bishop was asked in a public meeting I was at about the possibility of congregations leaving if motions changing teaching and practice concerning sexuality passed. His answer was that this had been discussed by the National Church Council and they estimated between 20-30% of congregations/members might leave, which he termed "acceptable losses". And frankly I have no idea what numbers would constitute "unacceptable losses"—I suspect it would have less to do with numbers than theological inclination.

[Erma S. Wolf]

   Any losses (in membership, number of congregations, or both) will never be due to any actions or decisions taken by the national churchbody.  That is not just on these recent decisions on ordination, marriage, etc.  Whatever the controversy, whatever the issue, whatever the decisions reached, any negative fall out (reduction in revenue, decline in numbers of people attending worship, joining congregations, growth in numbers leaving officially or out the back door) will not be deemed to be a consequence of the direction taken by the national church body.  That kind of admission might, just might, mean that someone in leadership might have to admit that maybe he/she was wrong.   

    It isn't just Lutheran church bodies that do this.  But do it, yes, we do.  And I don't see any remedy in sight. 

[Jeremy Loesch]

Right on Erma.  I think that the words sorry, mistake, error, wrong have been deleted from the dictionaries of our national church bodies offices.  Or at least in reference to themselves.  Telling someone else they are wrong, are in error, or made a mistake is acceptable, but saying that about ourselves?  Ain't gonna happen.

Perhaps that is why it is so shocking for congregations (in a good way) when they hear their pastor or church leadership say, "You know what, that idea I had, it wasn't so good.  I made a mistake choosing that curriculum, planning that event, whatever."  It's good to know that we're dealing with humans.

Jeremy

[BHughes]

Whatever the controversy, whatever the issue, whatever the decisions reached, any negative fall out (reduction in revenue, decline in numbers of people attending worship, joining congregations, growth in numbers leaving officially or out the back door) will not be deemed to be a consequence of the direction taken by the national church body. 

  Denial is a powerful psychic tool isn't it? The shame of it is how many pastors, deployed staff, synod staff and such like will pay the price for this folly.  Now, given the disconnect between the larger church and most congregations, many in the pews will never know what happened UNTIL the next crop of pastors shows up at the door with the new learning. IMHO that's the witness we can glean from the UCC.  Since they are years ahead of everyone else on this, it's pretty clear what's coming.

[Brad Everett]

Brian, your comment about the next crop of pastors raises an interesting point. For the first time in memory, the seminaries (we have two) were denied voice at National Convention. Further, an open letter from the faculty of the sem in Saskatoon raised some good and valid questions about the sexuality statement and arising motions, as well as the plan for structural renewal. When they tried to have it posted to synod websites they were refused.
So much for wanting dialogue and conversation.

On that note, seeing as how we were told any number of times that 'social statements are living documents and we will continue to discuss and debate them' I'm looking forward to a conversation at the 2013 Convention around the ELCIC's 1991 Social Statement "Stewards of Creation: Respect for Human Life Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Position on Abortion".

[BHughes]

Brad,

If I am reading you correctly, then my bad as I'm projecting the US situation into your seminaries.  Maybe our next pastoral staff position opening will be filled with a Canadian ...

[Brad Everett]

Brian, part of my post was lost.
Yes the seminary faculty wrote a decent letter offering good critiques, but that doesn't mean it is a bastion of orthodox/traditional theology and in fact it wouldn't surprise me if some if not most of them were in favor of the proposals (I don't know for sure one way or another as the Saskatoon sem has been kind of quiet on this—I just wouldn't be surprised).
However they did recognize that there were serious flaws and problems with the study and motions. Part of their concern stemmed from recognizing these motions would affect how they taught and were looking for clearer, better reasoned, better thought out motions.
Much like the one woman who rose to speak against the social statement who had a PhD in NT (she wasn't faculty), and said while she was in favor of what the study proposed the section on the Bible was terribly weak and a better job needed to be done on it e.g. she said we don't set aside OT laws or commandments because they aren't culturally relevant, but because of what Christ did. Sadly no one paid attention to her either which seemed to confirm suspicions that this was more about getting an agenda passed than doing theology.