The congregation of Grace, Kelowna, B.C. will be submitting a petition to the 2007 National Convention which convincingly calls into question the constitutionaility of the National Church Council's motion attempting to give synods the authority to make decisions on matters such as same-sex blessings.
Congregational First Vote to Leave the ELCIC Fails to Receive Ratification
According to Section 6, Article VI (Relationship to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada) within ELCIC congregational constitutions, "Should the congregation desire to sever its relationship with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada this decision shall require a two-thirds majority vote of all voting members present and voting at a legally called and conducted meeting. Such a decision shall not be effective until at least ninety days after the bishop has been notified and until the initial action has been ratified by a two-thirds majority vote at a subsequent legally called and conducted meeting". On October 21st, 2006 Mount Calvary Lutheran Church, Mission, B.C. took the first step towards severing its relationship with the ELCIC when the congregation voted by 82% to leave. However, at the second meeting which took place on February 17th, the first vote to leave the ELCIC narrowly failed to receive ratification as only about 65% of the voting members present at the second meeting voted in favour of leaving.
----
February 20, 2007
B.C. Congregation Challenges the Constitutionality of the NCC Motion
Petition from Grace Lutheran Congregation, Kelowna, BC under Section 6, Article VI of the Constitution of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC)
Recommendations to Convention Regarding the Delegation of the Approval of Same-Sex Blessings to Synods
The National Church Council (“NCC”) seeks approval of the following resolution: “This convention affirms that the diversity within Canada’s culture requires responses to a variety of persons in order for this church to be In Mission for Others. We also affirm that the synods have the mandate to devise mission strategies appropriate to their regional settings. Accordingly, we encourage synods to develop ways to best minister to people who live in committed same sex relationships, including the possibility of blessing such unions” (the “Resolution”).
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: We the undersigned, representing the people of Grace Lutheran congregation, believe that the Resolution is unconstitutional because it asks our national church to take actions which: (a) are inconsistent with the NCC’s own previous actions and decisions in the matter, (b) encourages synods to bless unions which are at odds with the teaching of our church on homosexuality and homosexual behavior; (c) delegates to the synods the national church’s duty to study same gender blessings as a social issue and a matter of faith and life and make decisions on the same; (d) changes the definition of marriage in a manner which does not conform to our Confessions of Faith; and (e) delegates to synods authority vested in the national church without amending the national constitution (Amendment of our constitution requires 2/3rds of the delegates at two consecutive conventions to approve the proposed amendment).
RECOMMENDATION: That the delegates of the 2007 Biennial convention of the ELCIC vote against the Resolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background and Rationale:
The Resolution is unconstitutional on the following procedural and substantive grounds:1. The Resolution represents a delegation of authority in opposition to the NCC’s own decision and precedent. In July of 2005, the ELCIC sitting in convention spoke and defeated a motion which would have permitted pastors of the ELCIC to perform a rite of blessing for same-gender couples who want to make a life-long commitment to one another in the presence of God and their community of faith, provided the pastor and congregation agreed (the “Local Option”). In June of 2006 the Eastern Synod (“ES”) sitting in convention, unilaterally passed a motion that gave a “Local Option” to its congregations. The Administrative Bylaws of the ELCIC (Part.VII, Sec.11) required the NCC to determine whether the ES’s action was constitutional. The NCC ruled that the ES was out of order in enacting a Local Option. The national church sitting in convention, the highest authority in the church, determined that it had the right and obligation to study, debate and vote on the matter of the Local Option. In 2005, the national church voted the Local Option down; therefore, the ES had no right, power or authority to change the ruling of the national church and enact a Local Option. The Resolution encourages synods to enact policies which would permit the blessing of same gender couples; therefore, the NCC, by bringing this Resolution forward, encourages all synods to take an action which is contrary to: (a) a vote taken by the national church, and (b) its own ruling that synods have no right, power or authority to make this decision. We believe that the NCC, by its own ruling, affirmed that unless the national church sitting in convention determines that such blessings are permitted by the Word of God, our Confessions of Faith and the teachings of the church, no synod can enact a policy which permits same gender blessing. The Resolution seeks to accomplish what the NCC declared is unconstitutional and is thereby also unconstitutional.
2. The Resolution seeks to delegate to Synods the authority to perform a rite which is at odds with the teaching of our church. The ELCIC teaches that, “Nevertheless, 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” [1] (the “Policy”). The NCC knew that the Local Option asked the church to bless a relationship the Policy called a departure from God’s intended structure of creation and sinful; accordingly, the first part of the NCC’s three-part motion calling for a vote on the Local Option, in effect, called for the suspension of the Policy [2]. The Resolution encourages synods to take the same action, blessing same gender unions, without suspending the Policy. The members of the NCC are trustees of the ELCIC and, as such, are charged with ensuring that synods and congregations adhere to the teachings of the church. The Resolution encourages synods to take actions that are against the teaching of our church. The national church sitting in convention cannot approve a motion which encourages synods to defy church teaching.
3. The question of whether to bless same gender unions must be resolved by the National Church sitting in convention, not synods or local congregations. Our national constitution requires the ELCIC sitting in convention to decide certain questions and matters and that these decisions be uniformly applied. Such questions and matters include changes in Canadian society which affect the mission and operation of the ELCIC and its congregations (Art. IV, Sec. 2(f)) and matters of faith and life for our congregations and pastors (Art. IV, Sec. 2(i)). Canadian Law permits same gender couples to marry and have all of the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual couples. The government of Canada has changed the definition of those who may marry and the kinds of relationships the government encourages, nurtures and protects. The government of Canada does not require communities of faith to marry same gender couples. The clergy of our church marry in accordance with Federal and Provincial marriage statutesand the teaching of the church. Our church must therefore study and determine whether same gendered unions can be solemnized in the church and thereafter nurtured and encouraged by the church as a normal part of faith and life of our church. Section 2(f) of Article IV of the national constitution requires that our national church study issues of contemporary society in light of the Word of God. Section 2(i) of the same Article IV requires the national church to decide all questions relating to the faith and life of our congregations and ordained ministers in accordance with the Word of God and our Confessions of Faith. The Augsburg Confession (“AC”), the Apology to the Augsburg Confession (“AAC”) and the Smalcald Articles (“SA”) are included as part of our “Confessions of Faith” (Section 4(b)(d) Article II) and cannot be altered (Article XX Section 3). Our church has studied homosexuality and homosexual behavior and teaches, as stated in Paragraph 2 above, that homosexuality is viewed biblically as a departure from the created order, and sinful. The resolution encourages synods to determine how to minister to same gender couples, that is, how to include them in the faith and life of the congregation and whether to bless, encourage and solemnize that relationship. Synods and congregations are required to act in accordance with the Word of God and our Confessions of Faith. This action would necessarily require each synod to study homosexuality and homosexual behavior and determine whether the vows between same gender couples are permissible by God’s Word and our Confessions of Faith. Our national constitution clearly states that such determinations must be made by the National Church sitting in convention. The Resolution encourages synods to take actions that the national church must undertake and is therefore unconstitutional on that ground.
4. The solemnization of the relationship underlying the Local Option represents an attempt by the NCC to change the understanding and definition of Christian marriage in a way which conflicts with the definition and understanding of marriage as set forth in our Confessions of Faith. In Article XXIII of the AC, Article XXIII of the AAC and Article XI of Part III of the SA, the reformers laid down general principles to be followed in examining any challenge to the institution of marriage; specifically, that any such change must be proved by an extraordinary work of God. Article XXIII of the AC and the ACC and Article XI of the SA were written in response to the Roman Church’s canon law, which required all priests to make and keep vows of celibacy. The reformers confessed that the Scriptures testify that God created us male and female, gave males and females a natural attraction for one another together, with reproductive abilities; and made us stewards of and partners with God in the continuation of creation. For this reason, the reformers came to understand that the love of one sex for the other is a divine ordinance and marriage between the opposite sexes a right which cannot be suspended or changed by church regulations and vows [3]. According to the reformers, the only grounds upon which marriage of a priest could be denied was if an extraordinary act of God was found in the Word of God. The scriptural proof texts given by the Roman Church in support of celibacy of priests were carefully scrutinized. At best, the reformers concluded, the Word of God describes celibacy as a gift given by God that can’t be imposed [4].
Our liturgy dictates that it is the commitment of a man and woman that makes a marriage, specifically: “I take you as my spouse, to love you, to be faithful to you and to share all that life brings as long as we both live.” The couple asks God to bless these vows. In response, the church declares on God’s behalf: “What God has joined together, let no one put asunder.” In the Rite of Blessing of Gay and Lesbian Covenants, of the Diocese of New Westminster of the Anglican Church of Canada, the couple: affirm they believe God called them to their relationship; covenant to a lifelong relationship of love and fidelity to one another; promise to share all of life’s burdens and grow in faith; and ask God’s blessing on and aid in the same [5]. While words may differ somewhat between a marriage rite for heterosexual couples and the rite celebrating the covenant of gay and lesbian couples, the marks of the relationship underlying each rite are the same. Based on the foregoing, we believe any rite which seeks to solemnize the union of a same gender coupleis a marriage, which must be authorized by the Word of God and our Confessions of Faith.
The proponents of the solemnization of the vows of same gender couples have the burden of proof to produce Scripture passages which show: (a) God created the sexual and emotional attraction between members of the same sex in the same way that God created the sexual and emotional attraction between males and females; (b) God wants to join the couple as one; and (c) God wants the church to pronounce God’s affirmative joining of the couple. The burden of proof is also complicated by Luther’s writings on marriage found in the SA. Article XI of Part III of the SA, states that marriage must remain free and as God ordained it (between a man and a woman) and that the church is powerless to stop any man who qualifies, from marrying his wife. He went on to say: As little as the power has been given to us and to them to make a woman out of a man or a man out of a woman or abolish the distinction of sex altogether, so little have they had the power to separate such creatures of God or forbid them to live together honestly [6]. The solemnization of the vows between same gender couples represents a church ordinance that seeks to permit marriage between couples and abolishes the distinction between the sexes, and is therefore in opposition to SA Part III, Article XI.
SUMMARY: We assert that the blessing of same gender unions is both a societal issue and a matter of faith and life, which the national church sitting in convention is required to study and reach a conclusion on this issue. The national church may only delegate that power to approve same gender blessings to synods if the national constitution is appropriately amended and approved. Section 3 of Article XX of the national constitution requires any amendments to be reported to the convention and must be approved by a two-thirds (2/3) majority at two consecutive conventions.
Grace Lutheran Congregation, Kelowna, British Columbia February 18, 2007 [7]
Karen Hill, Chairperson
Reverend Edward P. Skutshek, Pastor--------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES:
1. SEXUALITY AND FAMILY. A Statement on Sex, Marriage, and Family Adopted by the Fifth Biennial Convention of the Lutheran Church in America Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 25-July 2, 1970, Page 3.
2. The NCC's resolution read: "That the ELCIC acknowledge the inadequacy of sections of Sex, Marriage and Family, A Social Statement of the Lutheran Church in America, 1970, referring to homosexuality and homosexual behavior in light of developing theological, pastoral and sociological scholarship and that the ELCIC suspend the application of those references.
3. Tappert, Theodore G, The Book of Concord, XXIII Apology to the Augsburg Confession, (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1959) Page 240 paragraph 7 and Page 241 paragraph 11.
4. Ibid. page 242 paragraph 19
5. Diocese of New Westminster Website URL: The vows and blessing of the vows are found on pages 4 and 5 of the PDF document.
6. Tappert, T.G., Opcite. Smalcald Articles, Part III Page 314-15, Paragraphs 2-3
7. This petition was presented to the membership of Grace Lutheran Church at its regular annual meeting held on February 18th, 2007. The petition was approved by all of the 85 members present who were entitled to vote at the meeting.
