The Reference and Counsel Committee for the 2006 Eastern Synod Convention received seven motions pertaining to the issue of local discretion with regards to the blessing of same sex unions and decided to present one of these motions for consideration by the convention, regarding action on that motion (1.1) as subsuming the need for the convention to deal with the other similar motions (1.2 -1.7). Follow this link for copies of Motion 1.1 (the motion adopted by delegates to the Eastern Synod Convention) and motions 1.2 - 1.7, as they appeared in Reference and Counsel's report to the convention. These reports include the authors of the various motions along with their rationale. Noteworthy, for all seven motions is that the sixteen authors in total were all ordained members of the Eastern Synod. Included in this summary of motions received by Reference and Counsel are two others motions (1.8 and 1.9) relevant to the issue of same-sex blessings.
Motion to Relinquish Congregational Property in the Event of a Decision to Leave the ELCIC
Although a lot of attention has been given to the Eastern Synod Convention’sapproval of a motion allowing same-sex blessings, less is known about another controversial motion which came before the Eastern Synod Convention. According to a constitutional amendment, which was brought forward by the Eastern Synod Council, in the event of a congregation severing its ties with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, then all property owned by that congregation would be transferred to the synod (see page 2-10f from the “Report of Synod Council”). There was no vote on this motion. Instead the convention passed a motion “that the proposed amendments for Article VI Section 10 and Section 11 be referred to Synod Council for further reflection and consideration.”
----
July 21, 2006 Report # 1 NOTE: Reference and Counsel received a number of motions pertaining to the issue of local discretion with regards to the blessing of same sex unions. After exploring a variety of strategies to handle this matter, from a procedural standpoint, it was decided to present one of these motions for consideration by the convention. Action on that motion (1. 1) would subsume the need for the convention to deal with the other similar motions (1.2 1.7) A motion similar to the one being set before the convention for debate was considered at last year's ELCIC convention and failed to receive approval. It could thus be argued that any subsequent action by the synod, on this matter, is therefore out of order. However, Reference and Counsel is of the opinion that it can also be argued that the failure of last summer's motion did not establish a clear and unequivocal national policy, but merely affirmed that a church wide policy could not be agreed upon at that time. The effect of that action, without subsequent action to clarify what the national policy is, has - in effect - thrown this matter back into the jurisdiction of synods, thus making it an appropriate matter for synodical consideration. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. RECOMMENDATION: With the addition of the words in italics, we recommend that this motion be brought before convention for debate at this time. MOTION 1.2 RELATING TO: Pastoral Discretion Regarding the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions SUBMITTED BY: Rev. André Lavergne, Rev. Judi Harris, Rev. Helen Toman, Rev. Syd Hills MOTION: That pastors of the Eastern Synod be permitted to offer blessings of same-sex couples who seek to make a life-long commitment to one another in the presence of God and their community of faith. Authorization to perform such blessings shall require the consent of the pastor and the congregation. RATIONALE: 1. At its 2004 Assembly the Eastern Synod passed the following motion by an overwhelmingly majority: That the Eastern Synod petition the ELCIC National Church Council to initiate a study of the theological, ecclesiological, and pastoral implications of authorizing a parish based local option to perform same-sex blessings and bring appropriate recommendations to the 2005 ELCIC National Convention. 2. In March 2005, the National Church Council (NCC) referred a resolution to the National Convention of the ELCIC the effect of which would have been to permit the blessing of same-sex couples as a matter of local congregational option. In July 2005, the National Convention of the ELCIC voted down the NCC motion by a 55% to 45% margin. 3.The original Eastern Synod request had been made in the expectation that it would be dealt with fairly. While the process on the National Convention floor itself was fair, serious questions have been raised with Bishop Pryse and others in authority, including NCC, as to the intrusive red-ribbon campaign and attendant denigration of supporters of the motion; the unauthorized and illegal release of a delegates list to opponents of the motion; the inappropriate binding of delegates; delegates arriving late for the sole purpose of defeating the motion and leaving early once the motion had been defeated; delegates having their way paid on condition that they vote against the motion, etc. Eastern Synod delegates might reasonably conclude that the Eastern Synod Assembly motion of 2004 and the NCC motion of 2006 that resulted from it were not dealt with fairly. 4. Since the 1990’s, and even earlier, pastors in Eastern Synod congregations have been approached by same-sex couples desiring a blessing for their committed relationships. Pastors and congregations owe them a responsible and pastorally sensitive response. Moreover, the clear witness of ELCIC scholarship admits the possibility of a theologically sound, Gospel-centered rationale for the blessing of same-sex couples. 5. The foregoing combination of realities places those pastors who wish to perform such blessings in a terrible conflict of conscience. They are asked to deny the Gospel they were pledged to uphold at their ordination and, worse, to do so on the basis of a process so seriously undermined as to reflect very badly on our church. 6. This motion invites the Eastern Synod to take action that would respond pastorally to same-sex couples desiring a blessing of their relationship and that would restore the credibility of the church in dealing with such requests - in short, to do what the National Convention was prevented from doing. RECOMMENDATION: No action, insofar as it is subsumed underMotion 1.1. MOTION 1.3 RELATING TO: Congregational and Pastoral Discretion Regarding the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions SUBMITTED BY: Rev. Paul Bosch, Rev. Dr. Oz Cole-Arnal MOTION: That the Eastern Synod endorse the principle that, within the territory of Eastern Synod, it is congregations and their pastors who decide, by a two-thirds vote, on the blessing of same-sex relationships, informing the Eastern Synod Bishop of the decision. RATIONALE: 1. Pastors and congregations in the Eastern Synod are increasingly facing the dilemma of how to handle requests for blessings of same-sex couples with pastoral sensitivity. Our situation in Eastern Synod is perhaps different from that in other Synods. But here, pastors and parishes face a significant crisis in meeting the pastoral needs of their people. This motion would endorse, in a local congregation, the possibility of accommodating the urgent pastoral needs for a rite of blessing. 2. In view of the manifest constitutional and procedural irregularities in the vote at Winnipeg, this motion would have the effect of negating the action of the national Church at Winnipeg, on the territory of Eastern Synod only. 3. This motion would allow for the possibility, at the local congregational level, of a rite of blessing – not a rite of marriage – within the territory of the Eastern Synod. 4. Lutheran Church polity, through the ages and across the globe, has exhibited all three traditional types of ecclesial governance: congregational, episcopal, and presbyterial. But in North America, Lutheran Church polity has been chiefly congregational. That is to say, decisions on matters of pastoral care are made at the congregational level. No bishop, synod or national church assembly may mandate to local pastors or congregations on matters of pastoral care. Hence, pastors and congregations already possess authority in matters of pastoral care of their congregants. This motion acknowledges the principle of congregational responsibility in matters of pastoral care. RECOMMENDATION: No action, insofar as it is subsumed under Motion 1.1. MOTION 1.4 RELATING TO: Congregational and Pastoral Discretion Regarding the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions SUBMITTED BY: Rev. Nadine Nicholds, Rev. Suzanne Nevile MOTION: Moved that in the Eastern Synod blessings of same-sex couples be left to the individual congregations and their pastors as an outreach and mission opportunity. RATIONALE: 1. Congregations can move toward making a vision for Mission to Others a reality by embracing the Gospel’s call to reach out to others and meet them where they are. Pastors are very aware that there are same-sex couples who earnestly long to have their committed relationships blessed in their community of faith. As ELCIC Eastern Synod clergy we are not able to fulfill that role without penalty and thus we are missing out an important avenue of mission in our world as well as the opportunity to make an important contribution to our congregations and the wider church. 2. When we embrace our diversity, we both celebrate all that makes us unique as children of God and we embrace the vision of the great banquet where all God’s children are together. Each congregation knows their community and demographic, and is capable of discerning the needs of their community. When we invite and welcome people into our congregations to be involved in worship, work and service, we also need to welcome them into our rites and practices, without limitation. RECOMMENDATION: No action, insofar as it is subsumed under Motion 1.1. MOTION 1.5 RELATING TO: Local Discretion Regarding the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions SUBMITTED BY: Rev. Bill Shafer, Rev. Katherine Altenburg MOTION: That the Eastern Synod authorize the parishes of this synod to exercise a parish-based local option to perform same-sex blessings. RATIONALE: In 2004, in response to the Eastern Synod’s request that “the National Church Council (NCC) initiate a study of the theological, ecclesiological, and pastoral implications of authorizing a parish-based local option to perform same-sex blessings,” the NCC invited scholars from across our church to prepare essays on various aspects of this issue. (These essays are still accessible at http://www.elcic.ca/docs/2005/b\essinQs.htm\) While many of the essays did not necessarily endorse a specific course of action with regard to same-sex blessing, they did present a general consensus that same-sex-blessing is biblically, theologically and pastorally justified and, indeed, is mandated by our understanding of Grace. In spite of this considered opinion of the theologians of our church, our church remains deeply divided on this issue. Opinions on both sides of the issue are deeply and passionately felt. For the Church to be legalistic and specific on the issue will disenfranchise many, no matter what course of action the church takes. In view of this, a local option, which itself is biblically and confessionally appropriate, presents itself as our best course of action. RECOMMENDATION: No action, insofar as it is subsumed under Motion 1.1. MOTION 1.6 RELATING TO: Development of a Policy to Enable Pastoral and Congregational Discretion in the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions SUBMITTED BY: Rev. Clinton Rohr, Rev. Dr. Jon Fogleman MOTION: That the Eastern Synod of the ELCIC, because same-sex blessing is a congregational pastoral concern, create a policy to facilitate a way to enable congregations and pastors within the Eastern Synod to provide a faithful response in those situations where two members of the same-sex orientation request a blessing from their church to celebrate, honour and recognize their choice and freedom to express their commitment of mutual love toward each other. RATIONALE: 1. Same-sex oriented persons rather than choosing this orientation are created this way and deserve, as well as can benefit from the same intimacies as those who are heterosexual. 2. Members of same-sex orientation within congregations of the Eastern Synod of the ELCIC need to have the same privileges and opportunities to give expression to their love and commitment as do heterosexual couples. 3. While the scriptures do not speak specifically to the matter of same-sex oriented people entering into a marriage relationship and thereby receiving a blessing for the same, the Gospel inherent within the scriptures affirms God is a God of love, and this love is for all people and the whole creation who exist interdependently enabling them to evolve into becoming the people they are created to become. 4. While marriage in the traditional sense emphasized procreation as an important reason for marriage, people within the church affirm that the role and meaning of sexual and physical intimacy within marriage is a means for joy, healing, alleviation of loneliness, increased sensitivity toward the other, affirmation and renewal for the people involved, and therefore not limited to those who are heterosexual. RECOMMENDATION: No action, insofar as it is subsumed under Motion 1.1. MOTION 1.7 RELATING TO: Withdrawal of the Threat of Censure In the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions SUBMITTED BY: Rev. J.R. Bestvater, Rev. Clinton Rohr MOTION: That the Eastern Synod of the ELCIC in its convention in 2006, request of the National Church Council (NCC) of the ELCIC that it rescind the following words from its motion published in the above Issues Statement of Sept. 19, 2005: “…….National Church Council encourages synodical bishops to address breaches in this regard through pastoral conversation with the congregations and pastors involved and, if necessary, through censure and admonition,” and that the Eastern Synod of the ELCIC request of its Synod Council to rescind its endorsement of the above action by the NCC, as recorded in the Synod Council Report to the Eastern Synod 2006 convention, under Part I.11, page 5-19. RATIONALE: 1. The Administrative By Laws of the ELCIC Part II Congregation Section 1, requires congregations to comply with the Constitution, Bylaws, and Enactments of this church, and of the Synod, taking no action in conflict therewith. Section 6-c provides for the suspension or exclusion of a congregation if it persists in wilfully violating or disregarding the constitution or official actions of this church or synod. The bishop shall then counsel with any congregation… .admonish in writing….if unheeded appoint a representative committee to investigate… 2. Part VIII – National Church Council (NCC): Section 11, Mandates the NCC to review Committees and synods following receipt of minutes in which such action is recorded. A specific action outside the authority of the committee or synod, 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 is not rescinded the issue shall be reported to the next convention for adjudication. The wording in these articles and sections is entirely reactionary, and depend on such actions having been carried out by the congregation. The wording of the NCC’s action of September 19, 2005, in asking the bishops to “address breaches with congregations and pastors, if necessary through censure and admonition” is proactive, and should therefore be rescinded. 3. Section 12, Discipline of ordained ministers mandates Synod Councils to subject a pastor to discipline for specific actions. Again the language of the 4 instances listed is reactionary. Unless the Blessing of same-gender relationships, if indeed carried out by a pastor, is identified as congruent with one of these listed or added to the list (which is an amendment requiring proper process) the synod has no mandate to take disciplinary action. The NCC wording stated above and the Synod Council endorsement should therefore be rescinded. 4. Part X Conference of Bishops: Section 3, mandates the bishops: to b- reflect and provide vision on issues, c - develop and share objectives and strategies, d- recommend policy and practices to NCC, e- advise NCC on referred matters, f -strive to achieve consistent practices across the synods. Again there is an absence of wording which mandates the bishops to censure and admonish any breaches. Therefore the wording encouraging the bishops to take action if necessary through censure and admonition should be rescinded. 5. ELCIC Constitution: Article VI. Section 1. The congregation is a worshipping, learning, witnessing and serving community who carries out its calling according to the Gospel; Section 2. The congregation owns its property and makes decision in regard to its programming.The action of Sept. 19/2005 by the NCC and the bishops, should they comply with it, and the endorsement of the Eastern Synod Council, constitute a gross invasion and into the congregations mandate and should therefore be rescinded. RECOMMENDATION: No action, insofar as it is subsumed under Motion 1.1. MOTION 1.8 RELATING TO: Becoming a More Inclusive and Welcoming Church SUBMITTED BY: Rev. James Bindernagel, Rev. Dick Holm MOTION: That the Eastern Synod in Assembly urge its congregations to seek to make its membership and outreach more inclusive, in accord with the welcoming motion of the 2004 Assembly and Item 4 of the Eastern Synod Council’s recommendation of A Renewed Vision for Mission in the Eastern Synod 2006-2008, “We want to be a synod that reflects the diversity of our society,” through developing “a congregational profiling tool with a study guide to help congregations look at their community demographics and adjust their mission plan accordingly,” and through such avenues as their Sunday School and Adult education curricula, invitations to members of various minority groups mentioned in the welcoming motion to educational events or other congregational functions, signs in and outside the church extending specific welcomes, conducting of carefully prepared and conducted Caring Conversations, and any other means appropriate to local situations, along with regular prayer to carry out such a mission in the name and the Spirit of the One who invited all, Gentile and Jew, rich and poor, respected and disrespected, to hear the news of the reign of God. RATIONALE: 1. The membership of most of our congregations is European, commonly northern European, in background and has persisted as such while the population at large is becoming much more ethnically and culturally diverse. One result is declining membership. The purpose of this motion is not simply to reverse that decline, important as that is. It is, rather, to be the church of Jesus Christ both in word and deed in our communities and society in need of the gospel embodied, lived, and proclaimed by him. 2. The Renewed Vision statement is printed on pp. 5-33-5-35 in the Bulletin of Reports for this Assembly. (Appendix E) 3. The welcoming motion passed at the 2004 Assembly reads as follows: ES 04-19 M/S/C (Eastern Synod Assembly, June 2004, Brock University, St. Catherines, ON) 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. And that Eastern Synod congregations and specialized ministries be encouraged to examine their policies and practices and work toward embodying this principle in all aspects of their respective ministries. And 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 ballot count: 283-79) RECOMMENDATION: In that the spirit of this motion is embraced under the 2004 “Welcoming Statement” passed by synod and the “Renewed Vision for Mission in the Eastern Synod 2006-2008, we recommend that this matter be raised as a germane motion when the “Renewed Vision for Mission” is dealt with during the Synod Council report. MOTION 1.9 RELATING TO: Freedom from Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation SUBMITTED BY: Lesley Wollenschlager, Rev. Joel Crouse MOTION: That Eastern Synod of the ELCIC affirms and celebrates that God’s gift of Baptism is the means of grace by which children of God become members of the Body of Christ that is the Church, and declares that all members of the Body have full and equal membership in the Body. In order to ensure that all the members of the Body of Christ are free to share fully in the life and ministry of the Body we direct the Bishop to refrain from practicing discrimination against members based on their sexual orientation. Further we direct the Bishop and the Synod Council to revise all policies and procedures of the Eastern Synod that fail to recognize all the baptized people of God as full members of the Body of Christ that is the Church, or that perpetuate a hierarchy of membership based upon sexual orientation. May God be praised for the diversity of gifts that are embodied in the Church. RECOMMENDATION: No action, insofar as it is subsumed under Motions 1.1 and 1.8.Report of the Committee on Reference and Counsel
