8 Reasons to Say No to Synod Council’s Substitute Motions
Lutherans Concerned May Unilaterally Add Our Synod to Its RIC Roster?
1. A concern is that if the Assembly does adopt the three motions, particularly the first motion, then there is a possibility that Lutherans Concerned would unilaterally add our synod to its roster of RIC synods without our synod requesting to be added to the roster. This is not a hypothetical situation. For example, it is our understanding that Lutherans Concerned took it upon themselves to add a congregation in our synod to its RIC roster without that congregation formally requesting this of Lutherans Concerned. Clarification on this matter was sought from Bishop Pryse. On the one hand, he provided assurance that he could “not imagine that the Eastern Synod would request such designation unless explicitly directed to do so by the Synod Assembly". On the other hand, in response to a request for assurance that should Lutherans Concerned add our Synod to their roster without our request, then would Synod request that we be removed from the roster, his response was, "I have no means of determining what Lutherans Concerned or any other organization might choose to do in response to any action the synod might take. Neither is it possible for me to provide pre-determined answers to hypothetical situations". On the basis of that answer alone, one should not be prepared to vote in favour of the Synod Council's substitute motions.
Too Wrapped in Legalistic Terms
2. Synod Council’s substitute welcome statement comes across more like a legal document, a declaration concerning human rights, rather than an invitation welcoming people to worship and Christian fellowship. This is not that surprising given that we are told that Synod Council borrowed heavily from the terminology found in Part 1, Section 1 of Ontario's Human Rights Code [Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, same-sex partnership status, family status or disability.] For example, within the first substitute motion, for the phrase, “regardless of race, ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, age, record of offences, marital status, sexual orientation, economic status, family status, or disability”, all but “record of offences” and “economic status” come from Ontario's Human Rights Code. Categories appearing in Ontario's Human Rights Code but not appearing in this substitute motion include: “place of origin”, “creed”, “sex”, and “same-sex partnership status”. According to Ontario's Human Rights Code, "marital status", which appears in Synod Council’s subsitute motion, “means the status of being married, single, widowed, divorced or separated and includes the status of living with a person of the opposite sex in a conjugal relationship outside marriage”.
Too Ambiguous as to Content and Intent
3. By introducing this substitute motion Synod Council has muddied the waters even more, moving the discussion away from a mere welcome to something approaching a human rights manifesto. These new motions are full of ambiguity both in their content and as to their overall intent. Whatever side of the debate we come from, let’s embrace a spirit of candour and transparency surrounding this issue and the debate. Let's be clear and honest about our language, using plain and genuine language. Let’s be transparent about the expected implications and consequences of the motions if they are accepted.
4. There are several aspects of these substitute motions that are ambiguous and require clarification. For example, with respect to the first substitute motion:
That, within the context of our church’s constitutions and enactments, the Eastern Synod affirm the principle that all persons are welcome to full participation in the organizational and sacramental life of this church regardless of race, ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, age, record of offences, marital status, sexual orientation, economic status, family status, or disability.
What is the meaning/implication of the phrase “within the context of our church’s constitutions and enactments”? For example, does such a statement open the door to blessing of same sex unions or to the ordination of practicing gays and lesbians or to a broad acceptance of the “local option”? Without clarity as to the meaning/intent of such an ambiguous (legalistic) phrase, it would not be prudent for the delegates to approve such a motion.
5. Another ambiguous phrase in the first substitute motion is the phrase: “all persons are welcome to full participation in the organizational and sacramental life of this church regardless of race, ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, age, record of offences, marital status, sexual orientation, economic status, family status, or disability”. What does this unconditional welcome of “full participation in the organizational and sacramental life of this church” mean? Could the reference to “sexual orientation” be interpreted to mean, for example, that the church accepts the ordainment of a practicing homosexual? Synod Council’s addition of “record of offences” to their recommendation is of concern. Although we are forgiven even for those breaches of the law, is it wise to open teaching in our Sunday School to someone who has a history of abusing children or offer the treasurer’s position to an individual who once convicted of embezzlement, continues to live beyond his/her means? In fact, the “Safe Steps” model policy for congregational volunteer screening (Appendix C to Synod Council Reports) reminds us that a “welcome to full participation in the organizational….life of this church” is not unconditional. Scripture says that those who serve in leadership positions in a Christian congregation are to be ‘above reproach’ in their life and conduct, and that they are to set a good example for the congregation (1 Timothy 3:2; 4:12). A welcome statement is not needed, as faithfulness to Christ's teaching requires us to welcome all people to hear the gospel and to worship. As Jesus said, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).
6. Clarification has been sought from Bishop Pryse with respect to the third substitute motion:
That the Eastern Synod reaffirm its call for Canadians, both individually and in their public institutions, to respect the rights of all people regardless of creed, race, ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, age, record of offences, marital status, sexual orientation, economic status, family status, or disability.
The stated rationale for including this third motion is that, “Synod Council further believes that these discussions provide a welcome opportunity for us to encourage the application of these same principles of inclusion within the wider public sphere”. With the reference to “rights” (in the motion) and “encourage…application…within the wider public sphere” (in the rationale section), one could interpret this to mean that should this third motion be adopted, then Synod Council could use such approval as justification, for example, to publicly declare that the Synod supports judicial recognition of “same-sex marriages” and the redefinition of “marriage”. The following question was posed to Bishop Pryse, “with the reference to the ‘rights’ of people regardless of ‘sexual orientation’, need clarification as to whether inclusion of this statement is to be interpreted that our Synod supports judicial recognition of ‘same-sex marriages’ and the redefinition of ‘marriage’?” His response that, "Our synod has not taken any position regarding the judicial recognition of 'same-sex marriages' and the redefinition of 'marriage'”, certainly leaves the door open to that possibility. Again, without a clear understanding of the implications of accepting this motion, one should decline to support the adoption of the third motion. As stated in the Conference of Bishops’ July 2003 pastoral letter on Same Sex Marriages, “The government and the church have different interests with regard to marriage.” Agreed - let’s keep it that way! The adoption of this motion would send a signal that the church is prepared to venture into state affairs.
7. The ancient doctrine of caveat emptor loosely translates from Latin as "let the buyer beware".
Accordingly, if a buyer is uncertain about a given transaction’s importance, meaning and implications, whether the transaction involves buying a house in the Florida everglades or approving a resolution at a Synod Convention, then it would be prudent for the ‘buyer’ to say “no thanks” and walk away.
Enough Already!
8. We are more and more drawn into a quagmire of ambiguity and ill-defined meanings. Continuing to focus our energies on this matter is simply not worth it, particularly as it appears to be causing division in the church. Enough already!
