2007 ELCA Churchwide Assembly votes

[mnphysicist]

I found a blog covering the assembly live. Sadly, being the assembly is about over, its a bit late. Yet, the history provided in blog format is pretty interesting.

http://ponderingpastor.wordpress.com/

Here are the voting results:
http://www.elca.org/assembly/votingmatters/results.html

A few highlights:
Bishop Hanson is good to go for another 6 years.
David Swartling is the new secretary.

Bishop Landahl's substitute motion (http://www.elca.org/assembly/pdf/E3_Landahl_substitution.pdf) was passed 538-431:
RESOLVED, that the Churchwide
Assembly prays, urges, and encourages
synods, synodical bishops, and the
presiding bishop to refrain from or
demonstrate restraint in disciplining those
rostered leaders in a mutual, chaste, and
faithful committed same-gender relationship
who have been called and rostered in this
church.

All other memorials concerning same gender relationships were referred to Task force for ELCA studies on sexuality.

The memorial on Israeli-Palestinian conflict vote tally was initially 385-368...
Such initiatives, in consultation with the Evangelical Lutheran church in Jordan and the Holy Land could include purchasing of products if Palestinian providers and exploration of the feasibility of refusing to buy products produced in Israeli settlements. Also to be explored is the entire investment activity activity by this church.

However, 2 additional amendments were made on this memorial, and thus the final vote was 637-105. I haven't found the text yet, but will add it once a press release is made.

Additional news releases will be available at:
http://www.elca.org/news/Releases.asp

And the daily docket.
http://www.elca.org/assembly/docket/index.html

[Edial]

Sick.

[Melethiel]

Ugh, Bishop Hanson got re-elected? :sick:

[IowaLutheran]

Ugh, Bishop Hanson got re-elected? :sick:

I worked with him at our last synod assembly. He is a genuine person and speaks from his heart. You may not agree with him on everything, but I would ask that you show a little respect.

[RayJGentry]

While I do agree there is a degree of respect due to him, it is only so much as we would show to another Christian...remember the ELCA's ideology of pastors: they are but Christians with a specific call...not a higher call...any other Christian's call is just as significant, important, and due of respect. I think the direction he is leading the ELCA, despite how genuine he is, is catastrophic and unbiblical. Melethiel's response is basically the same as mine and I think not disrespectful...but yeah...just my two cents...

[Willy]

Mark Hanson is a remarkable man who is a great thinker, theologian, church leader, and human being.

[IowaLutheran]

I'll rephrase my point with an illustration:

There have been times I have been arguing a case in front of a judge and I think that his decision has been completely in violation of the law. I don't make a puking/gagging face when that happens though; I hold respect for the office of the judge and for the life of service to the law that the person sitting there has given. Do I agree with everything Bishop Hanson has done? No. Do I respect him and the office he holds? Yes, the same as I respect every other Christian and the vocation that they have chosen. From my personal experience with him, I can tell you he is not fake. You may not like his views, but remember, we elected him (and yes, I mean we - the ELCA is a representative democracy - people who didn't like him could elect voting members to the CWA who would have denied him a second term).

[JoeCatch]

A question for those who oppose Bishop Hanson's reelection: which of his positions, specifically, do you oppose?

[Luther073082]

Oh wait it said "chaste" . . . ugg I still don't like that though.

The big problem is if they are preaching a sermon and then are out on the town holding hands with their boyfriend then that puts a bad image upon the church.

If you get the full text of it please post it either here or TCL ASAP. I want to read it. Apparently its been edited from when I first read it.

[mnphysicist]

The full text is still at the CWA site
http://www.elca.org/assembly/pdf/E3_Landahl_substitution.pdf

Substitute Motion for Model Memorial cited in Recommendation E3: Restraint in
Discipline Proceedings.
RESOLVED, that in an effort to continue
as a church in moral deliberation without
further strife and pain to its members, the
Churchwide Assembly prays, urges, and
encourages synods, synodical bishops, and
the presiding bishop to refrain from or
demonstrate restraint in disciplining those
congregations and persons who call into the
rostered ministry otherwise-qualified
candidates who are in a mutual, chaste, and
faithful committed same-gender relationship;
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Churchwide
Assembly prays, urges, and encourages
synods, synodical bishops, and the
presiding bishop to refrain from or
demonstrate restraint in disciplining those
rostered leaders in a mutual, chaste, and
faithful committed same-gender relationship
who have been called and rostered in this
church.
Memorial Section E3
Landahl substitution

[AngelusSax]

The big problem is if they are preaching a sermon and then are out on the town holding hands with their boyfriend then that puts a bad image upon the church.

To some, perhaps. To many gay people who currently may (I repeat, may) think salvation is out of reach for them because no matter how hard they pray, they're still gay, it may be not so bad an image... it might be the image we need to promote after all. At the most extreme, it says "It's okay to be gay and act on it some", but more likely and realistically, and hopefully, the message will be "It's okay if you're still not a heterosexual, God's Grace and Salvation is out of the reach of no one, not even you."

[Luther073082]

I think we can communicate God's salvation being available to all without allowing gay men to have "chaste" relationships. I think this is taking it a step too far.

[AngelusSax]

I think we can communicate God's salvation being available to all without allowing gay men to have "chaste" relationships. I think this is taking it a step too far.So they can't have any relationships at all? If they're chaste, they're not doing the icky horizontal mambo, which is all that is forbidden even by the most face-value-proof-text-literal-reading of any of the Scriptures.

Why not just say "a gay man must live in exile from all humanity, or only in the company of women". Because that's the altenative to not allowing a chaste relationship.

EDIT: Just wanting to note that a relationship, while in the context of this ruling may be read as a romantic relationship, is still not limited to romance. Good friends, and heck, even mild acquaintances, have relationships. The fact that we're talking means we have one, albeit an online acknowlegment of each other's existance/views than perhaps an actual friendship. To not allow a chaste relationship with one's own gender is to, by definition (taking the word "relationship" at face value to mean nothing more than that) is to disallow friendship with one's own gender.

[Luther073082]

So they can't have any relationships at all? If they're chaste, they're not doing the icky horizontal mambo, which is all that is forbidden even by the most face-value-proof-text-literal-reading of any of the Scriptures.

Why not just say "a gay man must live in exile from all humanity, or only in the company of women". Because that's the altenative to not allowing a chaste relationship.

I think they can just do it with no relationship at all.

Never said it would be an easy choice if you are gay and a pastor but thats the choice they made.

[AngelusSax]

I think they can just do it with no relationship at all.

Never said it would be an easy choice if you are gay and a pastor but thats the choice they made.]It is not good for man to be alone... unless he's gay, then it's just sick and twisted and perverted if he isn't alone. Right?

Now, of course, I would ask you to re-read my previous post. If the qualifier "romantic" is added, then your position is not so extreme, but as it is now, with the way people like to take things at face value, and literally (at least when it suits them to do so), without said qualifier, even friendship would be barred.

As for the choice they made, the only choice I know of that they would have actually made would be to act on God's call to be a pastor. Whether a person is gay by nature or nurture or choice, I don't know. There may not be a gay gene, but there are differences in testosterone/estrogen levels that spike at early developmental stages which can cause the brain to "wire" itself more effeminate than normal or vice versa, I think.

[Luther073082]

Well if they where just friends why would they have to add the words mutual, faithful and chaste in there. Its pretty apparent what they ment.

Homosexuality is a sin, and Paul even said its better to be single then to be married. Absolutly nothing wrong with being single, pastor or not.

[AngelusSax]

Oh no, there is nothing wrong with being single, if that is your call.

But hey, let's look at another angle. When Jesus, in Matthew 16 (I believe), told Peter that the church would get to bind and loose things on earth, and that it would have actual power to do so in such a way that it would also be bound or loosed on heaven, did He mean it?

If He did, then the church gets to decide what applies and what no longer applies of the laws, as it did in the book of Acts (taking 613 laws and saying only 4 were still in effect, and Acts was written after Paul's letters--letters that appealed to Old Testament Law in many cases, as Paul never met the pre-Resurrection Christ).

I believe the church does get to decide, and so if the church decides the laws about homosexuality no longer apply, then I will abide. If they rule that the laws still apply, then I will abide.

That is not to say we cannot voice our opinions and have votes brought up in the future again on any issue, but that if a council of church leaders vote a certain way, then that's the way it goes, and what is bound is bound and what is loosed is loosed.

[Luther073082]

Oh no, there is nothing wrong with being single, if that is your call.

But hey, let's look at another angle. When Jesus, in Matthew 16 (I believe), told Peter that the church would get to bind and loose things on earth, and that it would have actual power to do so in such a way that it would also be bound or loosed on heaven, did He mean it?

If He did, then the church gets to decide what applies and what no longer applies of the laws, as it did in the book of Acts (taking 613 laws and saying only 4 were still in effect, and Acts was written after Paul's letters--letters that appealed to Old Testament Law in many cases, as Paul never met the pre-Resurrection Christ).

I believe the church does get to decide, and so if the church decides the laws about homosexuality no longer apply, then I will abide. If they rule that the laws still apply, then I will abide.

That is not to say we cannot voice our opinions and have votes brought up in the future again on any issue, but that if a council of church leaders vote a certain way, then that's the way it goes, and what is bound is bound and what is loosed is loosed.

Well first of all I really don't think that is what Jesus ment by binding and loosing.

http://www.gotquestions.org/binding-loosing.html

Secondly if he did then we would have a difficult time figuring out what church Jesus actually applies that to in heaven as some churchs have bound and loosed different things.

I tend to believe that OT morality laws still apply while procedural and sacrifical laws do not apply. Although the line between them is difficult to draw.

[IowaLutheran]

Well first of all I really don't think that is what Jesus ment by binding and loosing.

http://www.gotquestions.org/binding-loosing.html

Secondly if he did then we would have a difficult time figuring out what church Jesus actually applies that to in heaven as some churchs have bound and loosed different things.

I tend to believe that OT morality laws still apply while procedural and sacrifical laws do not apply. Although the line between them is difficult to draw.

I'm not really in agreement with Angelus' interpretation of what "binding and loosing" means according to Matthew 16 either, but please do not cite that website during a discussion of what Lutherans believe, as that website is heretical in many respects. Here's an example:

http://www.gotquestions.org/infant-baptism.html

[AngelusSax]

I tend to believe that OT morality laws still apply while procedural and sacrifical laws do not apply. Although the line between them is difficult to draw.

Fair enough. But even so, a gay relationship that does not include sex was never banned in the Bible, only actual homosexual sex was (as for why it was, that's a hot-button debate for another thread).

And hey, if the binding and loosing thing is something I'm in error about, then okay, let's hear why. But considering the church in the book of Acts did it, and God didn't strike them all down, I'm wondering how wrong I could be...

I'll go on record, too, and say that I do believe that anyone can take any position on any issue and justify if with the Bible. It depends on how it's interpreted, and it's possible (not a definite, but a possibility) that the Holy Spirit has different things to say to different people on issues.

It might be just like meat offered to idols... for some, it's a sin to eat, for others it is not, it's all about the reason for eating and the conscience of the person eating. It may well be the same point for lots of things, such as homosexual sex, or women being pastors, or having grape juice instead of wine, or vice versa.

Not that it absolutely is, but it may be. I think we're simply too quick to dismiss the "what may be" side of things, and focus on "what is", when in reality we're focusing on "what our interpretation says is".

[Luther073082]

Well I agree that people interprete the bible how they like, although I personally like to use a more literal interpretation.

I could almost be LCMS except for the fact that they have a tendency to ignore non-Lutherans.

[C.F.W. Walther]

,

[AngelusSax]

Way to go beyond what is meant.

Any action which brings harm to another would go against direct words of Jesus. Since practicing a monagomous, homosexual union does not bring harm to another (my money isn't stolen, my life is in no danger, my body isn't being hacked away), there is room for debate.

If the church doesn't get to bind and loose though, then one of two options is available to us:

The Gospel writers were wrong in recording this, or 2), Jesus lied. Which is it?

[FaithfulRemnant]

I'm a little hesitant now to join the ELCA after hearing the resolution on homosexual ministers. I think the individual congregations and bishops should be allowed more freedom in this matter. If they want to reject such ministers, they should be allowed to do so. Traditional conservatives should have freedom to exercise their values and faith as much as the liberals. It seems in my understanding there are groups like this, allowing the parishes individual freedom on these matters. Are conservative ELCA people allowed to post here? Sorry if I'm overstepping my bounds here but just wanted to give my opinion about the General Assembly. I attend an ELCA congregation regularly and it will be interesting to see what happens. In my understanding this congregation is moderate with a few being more conservative and others maybe more on the liberal end. For now, joining will be suspended or abandoned as I consider this recent decision at the General Assembly and see what happens here on the local level. If this congregation embraces the decision, I will be obliged to move elsewhere since this will be against my conscience and understanding of sexuality in light of my reading of the Scriptures. I prefer to worship in the context of traditional conservative Christian values instead of the more modern liberal perspective.

[IowaLutheran]

I'm a little hesitant now to join the ELCA after hearing the resolution on homosexual ministers. I think the individual congregations and bishops should be allowed more freedom in this matter. If they want to reject such ministers, they should be allowed to do so. Traditional conservatives should have freedom to exercise their values and faith as much as the liberals. It seems in my understanding there are groups like this, allowing the parishes individual freedom on these matters. Are conservative ELCA people allowed to post here? Sorry if I'm overstepping my bounds here but just wanted to give my opinion about the General Assembly. I attend an ELCA congregation regularly and it will be interesting to see what happens. In my understanding this congregation is moderate with a few being more conservative and others maybe more on the liberal end. For now, joining will be suspended or abandoned as I consider this recent decision at the General Assembly and see what happens here on the local level. If this congregation embraces the decision, I will be obliged to move elsewhere since this will be against my conscience and understanding of sexuality in light of my reading of the Scriptures. I prefer to worship in the context of traditional conservative Christian values instead of the more modern liberal perspective.

Yes, conservative ELCA people are allowed to post here!

The way I read the ELCA's action is that nothing is forcing conservative churches/synods to change their policy. The assembly urged bishops to exercise restraint pending the 2009 assembly which will take another look at these issues, but I see nothing forcing conservative churches/synods to start allowing openly gay pastors.

I strongly suggest you speak with the pastor about your concerns before making any final decisions.

[Luther073082]

Yeah what the nationa assembly passes does not necessarily reflect the views of a lot of congregations or their members. Which is sad.

[RegularGuy]

I'm a little hesitant now to join the ELCA after hearing the resolution on homosexual ministers. I think the individual congregations and bishops should be allowed more freedom in this matter. If they want to reject such ministers, they should be allowed to do so.

The action taken at the Churchwide assembly does exactly what you ask in regard to bishops.

The policy of the ELCA is that non-celibate homosexual pastors are to be removed from the clergy roster. The Churchwide Assembly voted to give the bishops some latitude in enforcing that rule. It gives them "more freedom in this matter."

As for congregations, the ELCA's call process does not force any pastor on a congregation. Bishops recommend candidates. Congregations call them...or not. A congregation of the ELCA is under no obligation to call an openly gay pastor if they do not want an openly gay pastor.

Note the word "openly." I think a call committee would be out of line to ask a pastor about their sexual orientation during the call process. The correct question would be something like, "Are you living consistently with the ELCA's Visions and Expectations statement?"

[AngelusSax]

The ELCA basically took a very wordy way to say "there's really no change in our position, we're just going to actually write that position down now".

[ProdigalSeeker]

Well, pre-convention they pastor and their s.o would have to remain "in the closet". From what I am getting from the convention, they are now aloud to be monogomous.

Chaste in the example does not mean the same as celibate as was previously posted by monogomous.

As for "forcing" a gay pastor on a congregation, of course they shouldn't. But at least with people being openly homosexual the congregation knows what it is getting as opposed to the case when you get a pastor only to find out they are one arrogant SOB.

[PreachersWife2004]

How do you guys think this will affect a church that might happen to have a closet homosexual pastor in it? Is it possible that the church wouldn't be able to take any action on it? I realize the memorial simply says to "lighten up" so to speak, but I'm wondering if it means that an "outed" homosexual would have recourse to appeal against any action taken against him for being a homosexual, mainly being defrocked, I suppose.

I promise I'm not here to debate about homosexuals in the pulpit - this point has been nagging at me since the memorial was passed and I just wanted you guys' insight.

Thanks.

[ProdigalSeeker]

but I'm wondering if it means that an "outed" homosexual would have recourse to appeal against any action taken against him for being a homosexual, mainly being defrocked, I suppose.

Well, they weren't "defrocked" for being homosexual as long as they were celibate, now they won't be defrocked for having a committed partner.

[PreachersWife2004]

but I'm wondering if it means that an "outed" homosexual would have recourse to appeal against any action taken against him for being a homosexual, mainly being defrocked, I suppose.

Well, they weren't "defrocked" for being homosexual as long as they were celibate, now they won't be defrocked for having a committed partner.

Okay, but what if a church DOES decides to defrock a committed homosexual? The memorial doesn't say a church can't, it just says it should exercise leniency. My question still is do you think that this memorial provides a way for the pastor to appeal such a decision from the church?

I hope I'm asking this the right way...

[RegularGuy]

but I'm wondering if it means that an "outed" homosexual would have recourse to appeal against any action taken against him for being a homosexual, mainly being defrocked, I suppose.

Well, they weren't "defrocked" for being homosexual as long as they were celibate, now they won't be defrocked for having a committed partner.

A homosexual pastor living in a committed same sex relationship might not be removed from the clergy roster (defrocked) at the discretion of the bishop. In fact, a bishop can still remove a pastor from the clergy roster for living in a committed homosexual relationship. The memorial only urges restraint and discretion.

[RegularGuy]

Okay, but what if a church DOES decides to defrock a committed homosexual? The memorial doesn't say a church can't, it just says it should exercise leniency. My question still is do you think that this memorial provides a way for the pastor to appeal such a decision from the church?

I hope I'm asking this the right way...

A congregation does not defrock its pastor. As I understand it, a pastor of the ELCA is removed from the clergy roster by a process that is run by the synod.

The memorial asks the Bishop, as the head of the synod, to exercise leniency.

A congregation that is unhappy with a pastor that it has called can appeal to the synod to have the pastor removed. The synod, under the direction of the bishop, can then decide whether the pastor should be removed from the clergy roster or recommended for call to another congregation.

Does the memorial provide a pastor a way to appeal a decision by the congregation. No...not in any way that has not been available to a pastor before. Does it provide the pastor a way to appeal a decision by the synod? No...not in any way that was not available to the pastor before.

The memorial does not change the policy of the ELCA.

[PreachersWife2004]

Thanks, RegularGuy.

[RegularGuy]

You're welcome.