Out of a "deep concern for our church and its future", a pastor from the B.C. Synod provides wise counsel to the National Church Council in light of their task at the September 15-16, 2006 NCC meeting to make a ruling with respect to the legality of the Eastern Synod resolution giving congregations the authority to decide whether or not to conduct same sex blessings.

----

August 21, 2006

B.C. Pastor's Letter to National Church Council

August 15, 2006

To: Bishop Raymond Schultz and the Members of the National Church Council ["NCC"] of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada ["ELCIC"].

Re: MOTION 1.1
RELATING TO: Pastoral and Congregational Discretion Regarding the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions
SUBMITTED BY: Rev. Brian Wilker-Frey, Rev. Herbert Harms MOTION: That the Eastern Synod of the ELCIC recognizes that the blessing of same -gender couples who want to make a life-long commitment to one another in the presence of God and their community of faith is a matter of pastoral and congregational discretion. Authorization to perform such blessings shall require the consent of the pastor and the consent of the congregation or calling agency, as expressed by a 2/3 majority vote at a duly called meeting of the congregation or calling agency, and in consultation with the bishop.
RATIONALE: 1. The question of who gets married or blessed has traditionally been a congregational matter - more specifically, a matter between pastor, couple, and congregation. Only in those cases where the congregation and pastor are at odds and congregational harmony is imperilled would the Synod and/or bishop's office become involved. This motion recognizes and re-affirms this long standing polity and practice. 2. National Church Council (NCC) has acknowledged that "deep and significant differences of opinion...exist within our church concerning this issue." On this issue, many in our church discern their responsibility to the gospel differently; this motion recognizes and respects those theological differences. Further, this motion sets a high standard of unity within a congregation before same-gender blessings can be authorized. 3. While respecting those who interpret the Gospel differently, this motion allows pastors and congregations to act in accordance with their conscience after demonstrating that thoughtful, prayerful deliberation and discernment has taken place within the congregation.

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I believe that with the passage of Resolution 1.1, the Eastern Synod has taken an action which has set a dangerous constitutional and ecclesial precedent. I am deeply aware that my name is linked to a congregational petition submitted to last year's national convention which opposed a similar motion on blessing same gender unions; and with Solid Ground Ministry/Canada (specifically as its president and public spokesperson), an organization which is opposed to both the motion to the national convention and the motion approved by the Eastern Synod at its 2006 convention. My link to said petition and Solid Ground Ministry/Canada may very well cause you to not put the most charitable construction on what I say. However, I ask that you suspend your preconceptions of what I might say and to receive this correspondence in the light in which I send it; namely, a deep concern for our church and its future. I write it from the perspective of the gifts with which I believe God has endowed me; namely, a legal background and a pastoral heart. I believe that our National Bishop and the NCC have rightly acted decisively and asserted jurisdiction over the matter of blessing of same gender couples. Therefore, in the response to the action of the Eastern Synod, I believe it is imperative that use your constitutional powers and once again act decisively to preserve jurisdiction over the subject matter and maintain good order and the unity in our church.

The Heart of the Matter:
The heart of the matter before the NCC is one of claimed jurisdiction. The Eastern Synod has claimed that individual congregations have authority or jurisdiction over an area of the life of the church, namely, over the blessing of a specific covenant between same gender couples. Quoting from the rationale for Motion 1.1 "The question of who gets married or blessed has traditionally been a congregational matter - more specifically, a matter between pastor, couple, and congregation." Motion 1.1 in effect makes this assertion an official policy of the Eastern Synod, thereby, empowering and authorizing congregations to bless same gender couples as long as certain requirements are met.

For the reasons set forth below, I believe that passage of Motion 1.1 violated provisions of our National Constitution, specifically, it (a) unconstitutionally delegated to congregations decisions on matters which have been reserved to the national church and (b) violated a policy laid down by the convention. Our National Administrative Bylaws provides that if a synod takes an action beyond its jurisdiction or which is not in conformity with policy laid down by the national church sitting in convention, the NCC is duty bound to make a written declaration to that effect, thereby postponing or suspending the implementation of the same.

Authority of Congregations.
Both our National and Synodical Constitutions give congregations great autonomy. By way of example, Article VI, Section 2 of our National Constitution provides:

Section 2. Each congregation shall operate in accordance with its constitution, owning its property, making decisions in regard to its programming, calling its pastor(s) after consulting with the bishop of the synod, and retaining authority in all other matters that have not been committed to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada or its synods in this constitution or by subsequent enactments.

Based on Article VI, Section 2, individual congregations could assert jurisdiction over the issue of blessing same gender unions if the matter has not been committed to the national church or a synod in the National Constitution or subsequent enactments. I believe our national constitution delegates jurisdiction over the matter of same gender blessing to the national church and the national church has heretofore assumed said jurisdiction.

NCC's Jurisdiction under the National Constitution - Its Mission.
Article IV Section 2 of our National Constitution defines the mission of the national church to:

(f) Study issues in contemporary society in the light of the Word of God and respond publicly to social and moral issues as an advocate for justice and as an agent for reconciliation;
(i) Safeguard the faith and life of its congregations and ordained ministers, deciding all questions relating thereto on the basis of the Word of God and in accordance with its Confession of Faith;

The National Constitution does not define the terms "issues in contemporary society" or "social or moral issues," however, I believe that "issues in contemporary society" and "social or moral issues" are ones in which the church is confronted by some societal action and is compelled to respond to this societal action. The highest court and the highest legislative branch of our nation have made rulings and passed legislation, respectively, which granted a completely new right to same gender couples, namely, civil marriage. Many religious institutions, including our denomination, is granted the right and license to perform marriage ceremonies; and, as such we act as agents for both the province and our Triune God. The legal rulings and statutes which created the right of same gender marriage, contemplated an exemption for religious organizations from the operation of the same gender marriage law. Congregational and Synodical constitutions generally provide that parish pastors are authorized to marry by their synodical bishop, and must perform marriage in accordance with the laws of the province and the teachings of the church. The new right created by our society caused a debate in our church, namely, whether that new right may be embraced and practiced or rejected by our denomination. For the reasons set forth below, I believe that our national church responded in a manner which asserted the jurisdiction of the national church over this matter in the manner contemplated by Article IV Section 2(f) of our constitution.

First, in their July 2003 Letter, the Bishops of the ELCIC made the following statement "In the Federal announcement the government was clear in stating that religious leaders will not be compelled to perform same sex marriages. Regardless, the churches still face questions about the blessing of such relationships. Since the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada has no official policy authorizing clergy to bless same sex relationships, pastors are not permitted to perform such rites and will be disciplined for doing so. For the sake of the unity and good order of the church, it is important that any changes in this practice be authorized by this church acting together." With these words our bishops identified a specific societal act which had an impact on the church's understanding and practice of the rite of marriage. In addition they asserted the jurisdiction of the church acting together to decide the ecclesial issues raised by the secular action.

Second, in November of 2003, a press release was issued which included resolutions specifically made by the NCC, that called the whole church, at every level, including the NCC to engage in the study of the question of the blessing of same gender unions. The release also affirmed the recommendations of the Bishops of the ELCIC in the July 2003, pastoral letter. The NCC emphasized the need for the church to act together and the far-reaching implications of approving or withholding the practice of blessing same gender unions: "a. there are specific and compelling reasons to engage this question such as concern in congregations and among pastors about their pastoral practice, questions in the wider society regarding the practice, religious freedom and its protection in Canada and our commitment to a church united in the gospel; b. this is a difficult issue for the ELCIC and the participation of the whole church is needed to address the question." (Quote from CC-03-88)

Third, Bishop Pryse and the Eastern Synod Council in a letter dated November 6, 2003, recognized and capitulated to the authority of the national church to resolve the question of whether pastors may bless same gender couples. "As indicated by Bishop Pryse's letter, as well as by the July 2003 pastoral letter from the ELCIC Conference of Bishops, individual pastors do not have the authority to conduct such rites unless the appropriate governing bodies of the church, after having followed due process, have granted them authority to do so."

The words from resolution CC-03-88 quoted above, articulate most clearly that the blessing of same gender unions touches upon the life of our church in secular society and how any decision that is made will impact our relations with one another, our society, and our ecumenical partners. Based on the foregoing evidence, a reasonable person would have to conclude, that our Bishops, the NCC and even the Eastern Synod Council, have acted out of an understanding that the blessing of same gender couples represents an "issue in contemporary society" or "social or moral issue", as comprehended by Article IV section 2(f) which must be studied, addressed and acted upon by the church as a whole. Given the serious consequences of authorizing the blessing same gender unions identified and recognized by the NCC it would be completely inappropriate to leave the action of the Eastern Synod undisturbed by reason that individual congregations would be authorized to make conflicting and mutually exclusive decisions on a local level on matter which our constitution states must be made on a national level.

Our National Constitution does not define the terms "faith and life"; however, I believe that the blessing of same gender unions falls in this category. The Supreme Court decision and Parliamentary action which paved the way for same gender marriage are firmly based and rooted in a specific interpretation of the core governing documents of our society, most importantly, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court decision and legislation state that the core documents of our society, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, permits the definition of marriage to include two consenting adults, regardless of sex. This legislation reflects an increasing willingness of our culture to accept and normalize homosexuality and homosexual behavior. Changes in our societal attitude toward homosexuality and homosexual behavior has most assuredly acted as a catalyst which has caused those in our church both lay and clergy, to examine the church's attitude toward, homosexuality, homosexual behavior and ask the question whether homosexual couples can be unequivocally accepted within the church and their relationships blessed.

Our denomination believes that human sexuality and marriage are a gift from God and an order of creation. This determination has led our national church and the national entities of our predecessor bodies to study the issues of marriage and human sexuality extensively and have drafted comprehensive statements on human sexuality and marriage which have instructed and guided our national church, synods and individual congregations. I am informed and believe that the social statement adopted in 1970 by the Lutheran Church of America, one of the predecessor founding bodies of the ELCIC, continues to guide this church's understanding of sex, marriage and family. According to A Statement on Sex, Marriage and the Family (1970), "Christian faith affirms marriage as a covenant of fidelity a dynamic, lifelong commitment of one man and one woman in a personal and sexual union". This same study makes the following statement about homosexuality: "homosexuality is viewed biblically as a departure from the heterosexual structure of God's creation. Persons who engage in homosexual behavior are sinners only as are all other persons--alienated from God and neighbor." I am informed and believe and thereupon allege that the 1970 Statement has informed and guided the decisions of our Bishops and the NCC with respect to the blessing of the same gender unions. As evidence I would cite the following: The Bishops' July 2003 pastoral letter affirms our church's understanding of the heterosexual nature of marriage and cites no policy which would permit a change in that understanding or practice. The motion put forward by the NCC for consideration and vote at the 2005 National Convention which would have permitted a local option for the blessing of same gender unions, specifically called for the suspension of the provisions of the 1970 statement which related to homosexuality, so that the local option could take effect. The inclusion of this provision is inconsistent with any other interpretation than that the NCC believed that the provisions relating to homosexuality set forth in the 1970 statement, were a bar to the blessing of same gender couples. As we are all aware, the motion granting a local option failed to pass, thereby, leaving our church in a status quo position.

Human sexuality, marriage, and homosexuality have been and continue to be a matters which go to the very core or essence of our relationships with one another and our Triune God. At the heart of the issue is whether God's word can be interpreted in a manner which would include same gender couples in God's order for creation. It is for this reason that our national church and its predecessor bodies have been delegated the authority to discuss and study these issues in light of God's Word and the Confessions to our national bodies so that we may be guided in the growth of faith and how life unfolds in our parishes and our homes. The quote from the rationale for Motion 1.1 "The question of who gets married or blessed has traditionally been a congregational matter - more specifically, a matter between pastor, couple, and congregation" states the obvious and completely ignores the context in which these decisions are made. Couples seeking marriage or blessing do not apply to the national church or even the synod; rather, they apply to a specific congregation and a specific pastor. However, the congregation and the pastor must follow certain rules and guidelines, including provincial law and the teachings of the church. While provincial law may permit the blessing of same gender couple, the same provincial law exempts religious organizations from the mandatory application of the law, and the church teaches that there is currently no policy which would allow marriage or blessing of same gender couples. I believe that the issue of same gender marriage or blessing represents a challenge to our traditional and historical interpretation of the core texts of our faith, namely, the Old and New Testaments and the Lutheran Confessions. The very nature of the issue dictates that we examine the issue of same gender marriage and blessing in light of our core texts. Any action must be taken at the national level following discussion and debate of the applicable provisions of the core documents which give life and structure to our church.

Based on the foregoing, I believe that the marriage or blessing of same gender couples is a matter of faith and life under Article IV, Section 2(i) of our national constitution, which must be responded to by the national church and is not properly an issue which can be decided on a congregational or synodical level inasmuch as individual congregations would be authorized to make conflicting and mutually exclusive decisions on a local level on matter which our constitution states must be uniformly applied on a national level.

Possible Conditions under which the Local Option could be Granted.
My congregation, Grace Lutheran Church, submitted a petition to our church's 2005 national convention. The petition argued that the issue of homosexuality, homosexuality and the blessing of same gendered unions relate to matters of public policy and core issues relating to the faith and life of the church. A summary of said petition and links to the full text can be accessed at the following address: http://www.solid-ground.ca/a-petition.htm. The petition concluded that congregations could only be authorized to make decisions with respect to the matter of blessing same gender unions if our national constitution was amended to permit the same.

Motion 1.1 Puts Eastern Synod Congregations in a Dilemma.
Article VI Section 3 of our National Constitution provides as follows: "After the organization of this church, reception of a congregation shall be by action of the synod on whose territory it is located. Each congregation shall, in its application for reception into this church, agree to abide loyally by the constitution, administrative bylaws and enactments of this church and those of the synod of which it becomes a part." Motion 1.1 on its face delegates to each of the congregations in the Eastern Synod the right to bless same gender unions provided that the pastor and the congregation agree. The National Church sitting in convention assumed jurisdiction over the issue of blessing same gender unions and voted down a similar motion. In response to that vote, the NCC admonished pastors not to engage in blessing of same gender unions. The Eastern Synod's Motion 1.1 permits and encourages congregations to take actions which the NCC has admonished pastors not to undertake; thereby, placing the congregations of the Eastern Synod in the postion of violating national church policy if a right granted by their synod is exercised. This state of affairs imperils good order and unity in our church.

Authority of NCC to Intervene.
Our National Administrative Bylaws, specifically Part VII, Section 11, mandates that NCC review the actions taken by committees of the ELCIC and synods for the express purpose of determining whether said committee or synod has taken an action which is outside its jurisdiction.

Part VII Section 11. It [NCC] shall review the actions of the committees and synods of this church at the first or second meeting of the council following receipt of minutes in which such actions are recorded. If a specific action is, in the judgment of the council, outside the authority of the committees or synod concerned or not in conformity with a policy laid down by the convention, formal declaration of that fact shall postpone or suspend the effectiveness of such action. If the action in question is not rescinded, the issue shall be reported to the next convention for adjudication.

For reasons set forth above, I believe that the NCC can find and declare that said action is outside of the authority of the Eastern Synod and is not in conformity with a policy laid down by the ELCIC acting in convention. The NCC's declaration to that effect would suspend or postpone the effectiveness of this motion.

I pray that God will bless your deliberations in this most crucial matter and that the Spirit will guide you.

In Christ,

Pastor Edward P. Skutshek
Grace Lutheran Church, Kelowna, B.C.