This is Not an Inconsequential Motion
1. In a December 2003 article (“Nobody Has a Corner on Righteousness”) in the Canada Lutheran, our National Bishop Raymond Schultz observed that issues such as same sex blessings have “split churches that have addressed it” and furthermore he provided us with a rather chilling warning that “the same can happen to us”. Attempts to soften and minimize the implications of approving this motion and its obvious and well-documented impact on the future of our church, nationally and worldwide are of concern. Given the importance of this issue and the possible long-term serious consequences for the unity of this church, we call upon our church leaders to embrace a spirit of candour and transparency surrounding this issue. On a matter of such importance, it is essential that Assembly delegates need to see the highest degree of clarity from those who propose motions related to same-sex blessings.
2. Examine this motion carefully in terms of its apparent inconsequential nature. Several weeks ago, probably in this very same room, the Anglican Church of Canada held its General Synod (national convention) meeting. The big topic at their General Synod meeting, one which attracted considerable attention from the Anglican community worldwide was Motion A134, “Blessing of Same-Sex Unions”. By the title of the motion, the delegates to that meeting fully understood the essence (and the seriousness) of the motion before them even though the motion talked about the mechanics of how that would happen, that is, by providing a local option to the dioceses. So when we talk about a “local option” in the Synod Council’s motion, what is essentially being said is that this church subscribes to same sex blessings. With this motion, our leaders from the Eastern Synod are basically saying that our church is prepared to accept same-sex marriages. One should be concerned about attempts to downplay the meaning and importance of a controversial motion surrounding the blessing of same-sex unions. It is critical that before the delegates to the Assembly vote on the motion they rightly see the passage of this motion to be nothing other than an endorsement of same-sex unions, that is, Local option = Endorsement of the blessing of same-sex unions.
3. One can understood that delegates might feel reluctant to reject a proposal to "study" the subject because of a concern that by doing so one might be characterized as narrow-minded, fearful, controlling etc. However, the whole goal of "study" is to give the idea of changing the church's teaching on sexuality an air of legitimacy because we are "studying it".
4. We are being asked to affirm what the Bible and 2000 years of Christian tradition clearly forbid. Christian leaders are trying to change the church’s long held beliefs about sex. Favouring same-sex relationships and other sexual practices which Christians across the world and throughout the ages believe to be immensely destructive and against the clear counsel of Scripture. By blessing same-sex unions, we are denigrating the importance of scriptural authority and eroding traditional societal and church values concerning marriage and family.
“Local Option” is an Instrument for Division
5. Our Eastern Synod Council by recommending the consideration of a “local option” is starting a process of handing those whose agenda is to institute same-sex blessings as a norm for this church a very powerful instrument that will ultimately lead to serious schisms in the church. Allowing a local option for a matter of such importance is irresponsible and a recipe for theological anarchy which will ultimately contribute to serious fractures in the church, as we see happening with the Canadian Anglican Church and the U.S. Episcopalian church. Such a proposal to allow stepwise changes in church policy to occur in a fragmented, divisive manner will ultimately destroy the unity of the ELCIC. Say no to those who are bent on changing the teachings of the church. Thus, we need to affirm that there is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship by saying no to this motion.6. The problem with the whole of idea of having a local option is this: It would mean our church would be teaching two completely different things regarding marriage. We would formally no longer have unity on this vital issue. In essence we would be two different churches functioning within the same denomination. The Communion would begin to look more like a network of interconnecting churches, some of whom would be out of fellowship with the others. Further if this goes through, what is to stop the ordination of practicing homosexuals? "Local option" is the death of the church as a church. Where there is no mutual recognition, there is no church.
Synod Council’s Motion Usurps Delegate’s Decision-Making Authority
7. Instead of asking the delegates to this Eastern Synod Assembly to approve or reject the “local option” approach for same-sex blessings (= approving same-sex blessings), Synod Council is asking you to transfer that decision to the ELCIC’s National Church Council (NCC). NCC will "study" the possibility of bringing such an option forward to the ELCIC National Convention in 2005. For such an important issue, what our Synod Council is doing is taking that decision making responsibility out of your hands. Delegates to the Eastern Synod Assembly, now is the time to boldly take a stand and stop this dangerous drift. This is a testing time for the church. We cannot sit idly on the sidelines while there are those in this church who are attempting to dismantle orthodox Christianity step by step, defy the clear teachings of Holy Scripture, and separate us from the moral consensus of the historic catholic church for over 2,000 years. Send a strong message to our Eastern Synod Council that in faithfulness to the call of Christ and the teaching of Holy Scripture, we cannot support this resolution regarding the blessing of same sex unions.
Synod Council’s Motion Invigorates “Red Herring”
8. Our national bishop, Bishop Raymond Schultz in an article (“Are We a Church for Others?”) in the Jan./Feb. issue of the Canada Lutheran has described the same-sex blessing issue as a "red herring" that is distracting us away from more important matters. With this motion the Synod Council is giving new life to this "red herring". It is time for us as delegates to tell our church leadership that we have had enough of this "red herring" by rejecting the Synod Council's motion which would allow the endorsement of same-sex blessings.
Lack of Clarity as to What NCC Would be Entrusted to “Study”
9. It is unclear as to what it is that we want the National Church Council (NCC) to “study”. Are they to determine (without debate in the wider church) whether homosexual practice is sin? Is it simply a theological study we are asking for? Or will they concentrate on investigating mechanics of how a local option would work? Are they to investigate how same-sex unions have impacted heterosexual marriage in other countries, like Scandinavia? Are they to look into broader effects such as health implications, adoption rights and parenting issues, and the effects on youth? To suggest that the NCC study the possibility of a local option, without specifically directing the scope of what is to be studied, which should consider a full audit of the implications in a broad context, would be irresponsible.
Local Option is Unconstitutional
10. Giving local congregations the option to determine whether or not to conduct same-sex marriages would be unconstitutional with respect to both our national and synodical constitutions. According to the ELCIC constitution (Section 4, Article VII - Ordained Ministers), “Each ordained minister shall conform in preaching and teaching to the Confession of Faith of this church” according to which (Article II - Confession of Faith - Section 3), this church is committed to, “the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God, through which God still speaks, and as the only source of the Church's doctrine and the authoritative standard for the faith and life of the Church”. According to the Eastern Synod constitution, (Article VII, Sec. 2, - Ordained Ministers), “Every pastor shall preach the Word, administer the sacraments and conduct public worship in harmony with the faith and practices of the church; shall baptize, confirm and marry in accordance with the teaching of the church and with the laws of the province….” The statements that every pastor shall “administer the sacraments and conduct public worship in harmony with the faith and practices of the church” and “marry in accordance with the teaching of the church”, clearly indicates that whether or not a pastor conducted a same-sex marriage would be determined by “the faith and practices” and “teachings” of the church as a whole and not by “the faith and practices” and “teachings” of individual congregations.
Bottom Line
11. The motion is of grave concern on two accounts. Firstly, it shrouds a radical proposal in the vocabulary of process, charitable dialogue, and changes of only slight increments and importance. Secondly, on a matter of such importance it is taking the decision making out of the hands of the Synod delegates and passing it on to our National Church Council.
