This article traces the recent history of how the National Church Council has managed the issue of same-sex blessings before this church - a series of flip-flops, that is, a journey punctuated by inconsistencies and reversals.
May 2, 2007
Flip-Flop at the Top
According to one dictionary, "flip-flop" (v.) means "to make a sudden or unexpected reversal, as of direction, belief, attitude, or policy".
For many of us who have been following the way in which the National Church Council has managed the issue of same-sex blessings before this church, it comes across as a series of flip-flops, that is, a journey punctuated by inconsistencies and reversals.
In September 2005, the National Church Council issued the following statement in response to the defeat of the same-sex blessings motion that the Council had brought forward to the 2005 National Convention:
With reference to the actions taken at the Tenth Biennial ELCIC Convention concerning same-gender blessings, National Church Council encourages congregations and pastors to honour the decisions that have been made and to refrain from taking actions that are in contradiction to them. 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.
Let's listen again to what the National Church Council said in the aftermath of the "decisions…made" by this church, meeting in convention in 2005:
National Church Council encourages congregations and pastors to honour the decisions that have been made and to refrain from taking actions that are in contradiction to them.
Now fast forward about ten months to July 6, 2006. The Eastern Synod, meeting in convention, passed a congregational 'local option' motion, very similar in wording to the motion that was rejected by the 2005 National Convention. Shortly afterwards on July 17th, Bishop Schultz, in a letter to the church, indicates that:
The Officers of this church will bring a recommendation to NCC [National Church Council] regarding the legality of the Eastern Synod resolution at the September 15-16, 2006 meeting to be held in Winnipeg.
Note the wording. We were told that the officers would be bringing forward a recommendation to National Church Council regarding "the legality" of the Eastern Synod resolution.
Upon reviewing the Eastern Synod's action at its meeting in September 2006, the National Church Council made the following jurisdictional ruling on this matter:
After careful consideration, based on the Constitution and Bylaws of the ELCIC National Church, as well as National and Synodical policies, the National Church Council has notified the Eastern Synod that its 2006 resolution on the blessing of same gender couples is beyond its constitutional authority. Therefore, National Church Council urges congregations and pastors of the ELCIC to continue to abide by decisions made at the 2005 National Convention.
Note here that the National Church Council ruled that what the Eastern Synod had done in convention in July 2006 was "beyond its constitutional authority".
Now for a "flip"! Despite the National Church Council "encourag(ing) congregations and pastors to honour the decisions that have been made [at the 2005 National Convention] and to refrain from taking actions that are in contradiction to them" and despite having declared he Eastern Synod Convention's actions in this regard as being "beyond its constitutional authority", incomprehensively, the National Church Council, at the same September 2006 meeting, indicated that it had "also ratified a motion, which will be presented at the 2007 National Convention of the ELCIC, to reconsider a local option for pastors and congregations to bless same-gender couples".
Now for a "flop"! Following upon the Eastern Synod Council's determination in November 2006 that, "the Eastern Synod had both the right and obligation to pass [the] motion [regarding a synod option for same-sex blessing]", the National Church Council at a special meeting held in January 2007, decided to rescind (cancel) its September 2006 motion calling upon the 2007 National Convention, "to reconsider the local option for pastors and congregations to bless same-gender couples".
Now for a big "FLIP"! The National Church Council also decided at its January meeting to bring the following new, new motion related to same-sex relationships forward to the 2007 National Convention for adoption:
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.
Despite all the verbiage, one needs to understand this motion to mean that the National Church Council is asking the 2007 National Convention to delegate, to the synods of this church, decisions like whether or not to allow pastors and congregations to conduct same sex-blessings. In essence, this is a synodical 'local option' on these matters, as opposed to a congregational 'local option' which was considered and rejected at the 2005 National Convention. Interestingly, such a course for this church was identified as part of the National Church Council's strategic goals under "Enable Mission/Synods" in the draft minutes from the Council's September 2005 meeting. Remember that this was the same meeting out of which the NCC issued a statement encouraging this church "to honour the decisions that have been made [at the 2005 Convention] and to refrain from taking actions that are in contradiction to them." The draft minutes recorded the following strategic goal: "Synods would have a local option on same-sex blessing after 2009"! Looks like the National Church council wants the date of accomplishing this strategic goal to be advanced by two years. Reference to this being a strategic goal of the National Church Council was subsequently removed in the amended, final-approved minutes.
Remember the National Church Council's ruling in September 2006 that for a synod, like the Eastern Synod, to make a decision about whether or not to bless same-sex unions was "beyond its constitutional authority". Accordingly, this church, meeting in convention, CAN NOT delegate such authority to the synods by a simple majority vote on a motion such as that put forward by the National Church Council. To give synods such authority would require substantial amendments to the ELCIC constitution as well as to the synodical and congregational constitutions. According to Section 3, Article XX (Amendments) of the ELCIC constitution, "Adoption of an amendment shall require passage at this and the next regular convention by a two-thirds vote of the delegates present and voting". Confirmation of such amendment requirements to do the kind of thing that the National Church Council is asking this church to do at the 2007 National Convention was contained within the essay, "ELCIC Governance and the Matter of Same-Sex Blessings" by Rev. Dr. William D. Huras, former Bishop of the Eastern Synod.
In his essay, which was composed at the request of the National Church Council in order "to assist the church in considering the matter of the blessing of same-sex relationships", Rev. Huras offered the following counsel to the church:
Statements or positions adopted by synods or congregations would need to be within their own constitutional authority or be in accord with the policies of the national church. The motion adopted by the Eastern Synod [in 2004] asks for the initiation of "a study of the theological, ecclesiological and pastoral implications of authorizing a parish-based local option to perform same-sex blessings and to bring appropriate recommendations to the 2005 ELCIC National Convention." Such a policy would have implications for our understanding of national/regional, pastoral, and congregational relationships and ministries. On such an important and clearly controversial matter any decision to allow a local or congregational option would probably require action by both the national convention and synod assemblies. I make this suggestion because guidelines for pastoral ministry while determined nationally are implemented by synods. In addition, congregational constitutions define marriage as one of the functions of their pastors. If national and synod bodies were to approve same sex blessings by a local option would appropriate action at the congregational level also be required? Indeed, would such action anticipate constitutional amendments at all three levels?
I say, "Amen" to that!
Ron Voss
Cochrane, Alberta
