An ambiguously tentative “probably not”
by Kenneth Kimball
May 2006 Forum Letter
Copyright 2006 American Lutheran Publicity Bureau. All rights reserved.
The church council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) adopted Response of the Church Council to the Request of the Metropolitan New York Synod (MNYS) April 2. If you don’t remember, the New York synod last October effectively declared independence from ELCA disciplinary standards regarding openly gay pastors in openly gay relationships. At the same time, they thoughtfully went ahead and requested “clarification” on their resolution from the church council, seeking to know whether the “guidance” they had offered to the bishop and synod officials at their special assembly was “in concurrence with the governing documents of the ELCA.” Forum Letter covered that special assembly in the December 2005 issue, “Defying Orlando: The ABCs of the New York Synod” (FL:12:34).
Tentative ambiguity
The answer in the church council’s Response is a tentative “probably not” — “probably not” meaning the MNYS resolution “may be read” as being in conflict with the ELCA’s constitution, disciplinary standards, by-laws, and all that.
The ambiguity of “may be read” was regarded as problematic by some members of the council. “May be read,” it was pointed out, also allows the possibility of “may not be read.” Efforts to include stronger language, however, were repeatedly defeated.
The result is a Response that is strictly a constitutional opinion, albeit one largely written by what passes for the ELCA’s supreme court, the Office of the Secretary, and thereafter adopted by the church council.
Might or should or must
The Response is notable more for what it does not do than for what it does. It does not, first, legitimate the MNYS’s attempt to overturn the outcome of the 2005 ELCA churchwide assembly on the issue of easing disciplinary rules for gay pastors. Second, it does not censure the MNYS, nor, third, does it require the MNYS to revoke any of the actions taken at its special assembly (not even the MNYS resolution’s favorable citation of a non-existent bylaw).
The council’s Response does appear to draw a line in the sand — reaffirming the constitutional boundaries of the ELCA. But it leaves unsaid what sort of action, if any, the church council or presiding bishop might or should or must take if MNYS (or any other synod, for that matter) continues to cross that line.
Early in the council’s discussion, a handful of (let’s call them) “idealist revisionists” made an attempt to approve the MNYS action, effectively overturning the outcome of the 2005 churchwide assembly. They introduced a substitute Response that would have placed the church council on record as “not” reading the MNYS resolution in conflict with the ELCA’s governing documents. The rest of the church council generally understood this as an attempt to circumvent the churchwide assembly. For the church council to take such an action would be constitutionally questionable and damaging and not likely to set well, so it was said aloud, “with the folks in the pews.”
Practical revisionists
Arrayed against the substitute were (shorthand, again) a “practical revisionist” majority, led by ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson.
While personally sympathetic to the cause represented by the MNYS actions, the “practical revisionists” parted ways with the “idealists” only over methods and means. They accepted the necessity of working within a constitutional system requiring a longer time frame.
“I read the New York resolution as trying to do what Resolution #3 offered and was rejected by the churchwide assembly,” Bp. Hanson said. “To adopt this substitute that allows the MNYS resolution to stand is to adopt Recommendation #3. I am concerned how that will be received in this church.”
When a council member suggested saying nothing and simply take no position in regard to MNYS’s resolution, Bp. Hanson also thought this unwise. “Silence,” he told the council, “may not be helpful. Other actions may come from other synods, on both sides of this issue. This church needs a clear word of interpretation from its elected leaders. For the church council to be silent on this would be to take a position.”
In the end, while quite a number of council members made clear their sympathies were with MNYS, they nonetheless said that the constitutional process and order must be respected. The church council cannot override or change the outcome of a churchwide assembly. A prevailing council majority, consisting of a handful of traditionalists together with a much larger number of “practical revisionists,” coalesced around the question: “How to honor the actions of the churchwide assembly while continuing dialogue (and preserving unity) within the church?”
So, the substitute Response was roundly and soundly defeated on a voice vote, with only two or three voices in its favor and with a loud and definite majority of the council saying “No.”
Technically telling
At the same time, while reluctant to supersede the actions of the churchwide assembly, the church council was clearly disinclined to endorse the actions of the assembly, particularly in regard to the defeat of Resolution #3.
This was illustrated by the council’s decision to note the 2005 churchwide assembly decisions by a single parenthetical reference.
This is technical but telling. The sole reference to the churchwide assembly action was moved from near the beginning, where it was originally, all the way to the end. The 2005 churchwide assembly decisions on the three sexuality resolutions from Orlando were detached from “applicable policies related to rostered ministry and candidacy” and attached to something about “continuing dialogue on mission and ministry issues within the life of this church” near the conclusion of Response.
The point to make is, the decisions of the 2005 Orlando assembly are by no means regarded by the ELCA church council as the last word on the subject. The revisionist majority on the council — whether “practical” or “idealist” — regard the disciplinary policies of the ELCA as having only impermanent status, requiring only an uncertain lip service. It is a subtle distinction to be sure, but one that says a great deal about where we are in the ELCA.
Ken Kimball <pastrken@acegroup.cc> is pastor of Old East Paint and Old West Paint Creek Lutheran Churches of rural Waterville, IA. He serves on the steering committee of Lutheran Coalition For Reform (CORE). This is his first contribution to Forum Letter.
Copyright 2006 American Lutheran Publicity Bureau. All rights reserved.
