October 28, 2005
A Nearly 50:50 Split in “Our Church”?
Commenting on the outcome of the recent National Convention vote on the resolution concerning same-sex blessings, ELCIC Bishop Raymond Schultz made the observation that “The vote was almost a 50-50 split, which means that half of our church is not satisfied with the outcome”. According to Section 3, Article III (Nature of the Church) in the ELCIC constitution, “this church derives its character and its powers both from its congregations and from its inherent nature as part of the Church universal”. The fact of the matter is that of the 414 delegates to the convention, of which 40% were clergy, approximately 55% opposed the resolution and 45% were in favour. Interestingly the same-sex resolution had received unanimous endorsement by the members of the National Church Council. However, there is no basis to extrapolate from the recent convention vote that “our church”, namely, the various congregations and associated parishioners within the ELCIC, are split about 50:50 on the matter. In that light, such a statement by our national bishop can be misleading, tending to convince people in the pews that there is a groundswell of support for same sex blessings among their fellow parishioners.
On this matter, it is of interest and instructive to consider what came out of a study conducted by our Lutheran brothers and sisters to the south, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Over the course of two-three years and at a cost of several million dollars the ELCA conducted an extensive study related to sexuality. The study invited responses and from an analysis of about 14% of the 28,000 responses that were received, the ELCA’s special Task Force concluded that, “The majority of the responses expressed opposition to the blessing of same-sex unions and to the ordaining, commissioning or consecrating of people in such partnerships” (Report and Recommendations from the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality, January 2005, p. 10). According to the individual responses that were received, 57.0% opposed blessings and rostering, 22.1% favoured blessing and rostering, 3.4% offered alternatives and 17.4% called for a delay or expressed no opinion. However, one needs to be aware of the shortcomings of the survey given that the Task Force did not undertake a random sampling of a cross-section of the ELCA membership. Instead the respondents were self-selected, that is, those who took the initiative to respond to the survey, and, consequently, even the 22% is likely to be inflated given that that those who seek a radical change are arguably more motivated to submit a survey.
In his statement, “A Reasonable Compromise”, posted at the ELCIC’s “Additional Contributions” web page, Eastern Synod Bishop Michael Pryse asserts that “there are ELCIC congregations and pastors” for whom the blessing of same-sex relationships is “a pressing pastoral question”. Similarly, Lionel Ketola in his essay, “Words and Deeds: Putting ‘fully welcome’ into action - A gay couple’s response to the ELCIC’s legacy of discrimination and the National Church Council’s recommendation on same-sex blessings”, warns that unless there is a complete removal of all barriers to ordination and the blessing of same-sex relationships, then one can expect “acts of ecclesial disobedience by congregations tired of endless waiting for permission” to bless same-sex relationships and ordain those in such relationships. These statements carry the implication that there is strong grassroots (that is, congregational) support for same-sex blessings and the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals. On the other hand, what we find is that numerous congregations (at least 14 are listed in Bulletin of Reports) petitioned the recent National Convention to adopt motions in support of the traditional, Biblical understanding of marriage being a union of one man and one woman and homosexual practice as being a sin. This was their response to the National Church Council's communications to the church in March 2004 encouraging congregations “to use the constitutional process of this church to examine the issue and give direction to this church’s deliberations”. The Committee on Reference & Counsel, appointed by the national church officers, showed a profound disrespect for these congregations by essentially ignoring their petitions. Noteworthy is that not a single petition was received from congregations supporting same sex blessings and the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals. Furthermore, more than 5000 ELCIC Lutherans from about 260 congregations expressed their opposition to the National Church Council’s resolution making their voices known through signing on to takingastand’s Statement of Concern.
In his thought-provoking essay ("A Clear Question") posted at the ELCIC's "Additional Contributions" web page, Rev. Tim Johnson (Grace Lutheran Church, Dawson Creek, B.C.) observed that "Not only the resolution itself but far too much of the process of discussion up to this point has consisted of telling the church, not asking the church." The results of the vote at the recent national convention have handed us an opportunity, which, in Pastor Johnson's words, involves "stepping back, and taking a whole new approach based on the principles of asking the church, not telling". Pastor Johnson recommends "universal enfranchisement of the laity" whereby the church "actively seek(s) the votes of every member of our congregations" so that any decision on the need for a change in church policy on these matters "comes from the grassroots of the church, not the extremes". The question to the laity would be, "What is the Holy Spirit telling the church … through you?" Such a process "to discern the will of God", would begin, proceed, and end in prayer where "We are asking God, not telling God". The question then to our National Church Council and other leaders of this church is are they prepared to support and promote such a process?
Ron Voss
