|
|
Saturday, August 13th, 2005
| |
7:45 am - The Day of One Issue
|
Yesterday there was no debate on anything other than the sexuality studies. We started at 8:15, continued until around 11, then from 1:15 until a little after 6. To end suspense, recommendations one and two were passed (with a very minor amendment in two), and recommendation 3 did not. Actually, it was pretty much the way I expected.
As I said before, there was actually some dissent for Rec. 1, basically because people thought we shouldn't be voting on unity. But it passed with a vote of 851-127 (for clarity, whenever I report a vote, the number voting yes will be first). Only a majority was required.
Then we started on Rec. 2. There were 6 proposed amendments--4 changes and 2 substitutions--but one was withdrawn. The day before we had passed a rule asking an ad hoc committee to order the amendments from most change to current policy to least change. So that's the way we considered them. The first substitution would outright allow pastors to preside at blessings (the one with the longest debate, leading to a rule that each amendment would only be granted 20 minutes), the second substitution would outright disallow it. Then we voted down an amendment that would require pastors to seek other ways than blessing of unions to provide pastoral care, followed by a sentence that would not allow the statement of the Bishops to be used for discipline. The only one that passed changed the final words in the resolution from "to same sex couples" to "for all to whom they minister" when referring to whom pastors should provide faithful pastoral care. That vote was close, 491-484. The Recommendation was passed 670-323, with a majority required.
Then came Rec. 3. We considered 7 changes, with one proposed amendment withdrawn. Several were to remove all barriers to the rostering of gay and lesbian people in a committed relationship, and some called for the "fair and consistent application" of the discipline in Visions and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines.
We were considering the second substitution (calling for a neutral stance) that the real fun started. There have been visitors all week from groups on both side of the issue. Goodsoil supports the proposals and would expand them, Solid Rock opposes them. For the past few days there has been a silent vigil of standing members of Goodsoil, holding pictures, in the visitors' section. But while the author of the second substitution was reading his proposal, visitors from both side left the visitors' section, came into the voting members' section, and stood silently in front of the stage.
Of course, people erupted, wanting to call us into recess until the hall could be restored to good order and the visitors removed (something that greatly upset the visitors who were 'behaving' themselves), but that was turned down because that would lead to force being used on the floor. Bsp. Hanson asked them to leave several times, but they refused, leading him to express his disappointment in their actions. Bsp. Hanson suggested (as a father of 6), that we treat them as children who are using attention-seeking behavior and just ignore them, showing greater maturity. Eventually, that's what we did. But still, I was disappointed they would do such a thing--it did make them seem like petulant children, especially when all the VM's have been working hard to keep the debate prayerful, considerate, and within the rules.
Then we had some ecumenical greetings from LCMS, the Catholic Church, and Lutheran Men in Mission. Do you think it was telling that the Catholic guy got a better, warmer welcome than the LCMS guy? And the Catholic Church in America is going to be taking a look at making a common statement on Communion with us. This could be interesting!
Because the session went so late, our time at Universal was obviously cut short. We only had 2 1/2 hours in the park, but because there were no crowds, we were able to ride just about everything non-watery. Then we ate at Hard Rock and came back to the hotel at midnight, so I'm really really tired at the moment.
Happy Anniversary, Mom and Dad!
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Friday, August 12th, 2005
| |
1:02 pm - We may never be allowed to leave.
|
There are still about a million items of business before the Assembly, so we extended this afternoon's session to 5:00. That's frustrating for the many of us who have tickets to Universal and were planning on spending the afternoon there, but we are moving too slowly to do anything else. So we plan on just going after the lengthy session is over and spending the few hours there that we can. ARGH!
We took two votes this morning. One was to approve Recommendation One, calling for unity in the church despite disagreements. There was actually debate on it, believe it or not. But it passed.
Then we started on Recommendation Two, and there are 6 amendments or substitutions before the body. We spent all morning on the first one, which would change it so that congregations could choose to allow their pastors to perform blessings of same-sex unions. It finally got defeated by a vote of 334-665. But there are now rules in place to limit debate of amendments to no more than 20 minutes. Main motions have no limit yet, however.
I'll keep you updated as possible!
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| |
7:43 am - 7:00 is getting earlier and earlier...
|
Well, we still haven't had a unanimous (sp.?) vote yet; the closest we've come was for the Arab/Middle Eastern evangelism strategy, but that had two lone "no" votes.
We've also passed the African Descent strategy, but that had 5 "no" votes, despite pleas for everyone to make this about the only vote that was all yes. There were questions raised about the functionality of the voting machines, but a quick test revealed that they were all working.
We also finished passing the resolutions and constitutional and bylaw changes to make the restructuring final. The biggest problem is that the new structur eliminated the Commission for Women, and people were understandably upset. But some language was inserted and a new resolution written that made it clear that now the Commission's mandate applies to the whole church, and future CWAs are now required to get an update on how that's working.
The biggest issue of the day yesterday was the quasi-committee of the whole to discuss the sexuality recommendations. We went for an hour, so over 30 people got to speak. Even so, there were about that many yet again at the mikes. There was an attempt to add time, but because we had the evening free yesterday and many synods had plans, that was fairly narrowly defeated--it needed a 2/3 majority, and it only achieved a simple majority.
I was keeping track at my seat of speakers for/against/questionable the recommendations. Surprisingly, it was evenly matched, even though because it was a quasi-committee of the whole, you could go to any microphone and there was no alternating of opinion. And the discussion was civil. There was no condemnation on any side--at least overtly. The issue of living in sin was raised, but it wasn't directed at anyone. We had pastors, bishops, and lay people get up and speak, both gay and straight. I'm not sure that such discussion actually changes any minds, but it was there.
I did not speak--I hadn't finished my speech, and so it took too long to even consider getting up so that the lines at the mikes were much longer than we had time for. But there were a few young people who spoke, so I was slightly happy. We vote today (there are about 12 amendments that were submitted), so there will be more opportunity to speak.
The one comment that got me riled up was when a pastor from California said that we would be missing our date with destiny if we passed these recommendations because the church's future is in the South, and we would be sending the wrong message to the Southern people if we pass them. That was when I really wanted to speak, not that my thoughts were particularly organized at the time.
We also passed the Interim communion agreement with the Methodist church; some people expressed that they thought we already had this, so we should pass it. No one spoke against, so eventually the question was called and we passed it.
We heard from the head of Reform Judaism--the first non-Christian ever to speak at a CWA. He spoke of hope for peace and continued work together, and thanked us very much for our work and our expression of common commitment on this the 350th (or something close) anniversary of the first Jewish settlement in the US.
There were also ecumenical greetings from our partner churches (Missouri Synod is today), and we had the evening off. So the synod went to a wonderful (and rather expensive) fish and steak restaurant for dinner together, with the Synod paying, of course! So I had sea bass with a lobster meat sauce. Delicious. But the best part was that it was right next to a CVS, so Stephanie and I talked Wes, who drove us, into letting us duck in to get some Cokes for today. Now I'll be all caffinated up and ready to face today!
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Thursday, August 11th, 2005
| |
1:17 pm - Some reflections, so it's a little scattered
|
First, I forgot to add about yesterday that for dinner Stephanie (the 18 year old youth voting member from our synod) and two other Southeastern VM's took a shuttle bus from the hotel to Citywalk and ate a wonderful dinner at Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville! We figured that if we were going to pay that much for a meal, we might as well get out and enjoy ourselves instead of staying in the hotel!
Throughout this week, I've been struck by the differences between Bsp. Hanson and Bsp. Anderson, the former Presiding Bishop. Both are strong leaders who only influence debates in small matters. But Hanson is much more outgoing, cracking jokes and laughing more with the assembly, while Anderson was always just a quiet force and very businesslike. I really like and respect both men--they have done a great job guiding these assemblies through some extremely tough situations and debates.
There are a number of people that we have seen time and time again getting up to speak. Rand Smith (who is sitting next to me) and I have just about decided that they don't have mirrors in their rooms and want to use the giant screens to make sure they look all right! Not really, but sometimes it seems like that.
And because so many people come to this Assembly geared up to debate and argue on certain issues, that carries over to other things we are discussing. So I don't think there have been but a few issues that didn't involve quite a bit of talking and debate even over very small tiny issues.
Yet there's a definite sense of civility as we go around this week. I think many people have come here with the genuine intention to talk and listen, even if they disagree. Admittedly we haven't discussed the sexuality studies yet (that's this afternoon), but that's the feeling I get. I hope and pray it will continue over the next few hours.
Worship has been pretty neat. On Tuesday the choir was a gospel choir from Detroit, and they literally rocked the assembly. I mean, if you can get some of these old Lutherans up and clapping, you're doing something right! Then we've had several services with classical musicians and fairly traditional music. Today's worship music was led by a praise band, and we had almost exclusively contemporary hymns and liturgies. I could see on some faces around me that the effort was not completely appreciated, but I enjoyed it for the most part. I had some issues when they were changing music around (rhythms and even melodies) from what was in front of us--there are so many people here who know how to read hymn music that that really hurts the congregational singing--but it was generally very good.
I've also enjoyed times when we sing during plenary. Twice now we've sung some more well-known hymns, and the organ has dropped out on one of the verses, allowing over 1,000 people to sing in rich, four-part harmonies. That is one of the coolest things about Assemblies.
Another cool thing has always been the free stuff. We've gotten a stainless steel coffee mug, but I gave mine to another VM from Southeastern who wanted one for his wife--it was exactly the same as I've gotten before. I have a miniature indoor palm tree, coffee beans, and the lunchbox we got yesterday (along with an orange that's rather more green than orange in color). Today there was only a Sharpie pen. A good pen, but we were a tiny bit disappointed. Oh, well!
If people really want to make friends with us, they should provide candy and other snacks to us!
I'll be back when I can--Synodical dinner tonight and, like last night, we're going a half hour later than scheduled to get everything in. I may have to do today's report in the morning again.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| |
7:40 am - What day is it?
|
Since I'm writing this before breakfast in an attempt not to have to deal with a line, please forgive any randomness in my thoughts.
I neglected to mention that my stint as a Communion assistant Tuesday went very well. We almost ran out of wine (I was holding the cup), and I almost forgot to say the words to the first person we Communed, but we had just enough and I remembered in time.
Yesterday was another fairly calm day, but we actually got some business done. The biggest order of the day (at least to me) was Renewing Worship, which, I am happy to report, was passed and approved. The CWA doesn't actually approve the final product--that responsibility goes to the Conference of Bishops and the Church Council. But believe me, people were trying to get final approval! There were at least 3 motions to delay approval for anywhere from 2 to 4 years so that a CWA could see the completed final product. But those were defeated (that goodness!), so we should have the resources in hand soon. There was lots of talk about rushing through this (crazy talk, since it's been going on since 2001), and LOTS of complaint about the theology--nothing I've really heard from any pastors that have actually used it. One of the big issues was over masculine pronouns. Apparantly they went for a balance of using "Him" or using the 'generic' "God" to keep it from being completely masculine, and that got people very upset. But it passed, so there.
Another issue was restructuring and governance. We passed the structure part in the morning, and tried to do the governance in the afternoon. But there was an amendment to create a new version of the commission for women (the Commission is eliminated in the new structure), and that had budget implications. So the amendment has to go to a budget group for a report before we can vote on it, which delays our discussion of the entire thing.
The final item of business was a memorial on world hunger. It started as a pretty straightforward statement committing this church on the congregational, synodical, and churchwide level to eliminating worldwide chronic hunger. But people started trying to list the many sociological causes of hunger, and it got convoluted pretty quickly. That amendment was defeated, though, and the ones that came through committed us to legal advocacy and condemned regimes whose policies such as war and discrimination cause hunger.
We also received reports from the Secretary and Treasurer. We had the introductions to the ethnic ministry strategies, and we got a really nice bright red insulated lunchbox from the Mission Investment Fund! It had a bottle of water in it, and I drank almost all of it before lunch, intending to refill it after lunch. But they came by to pick up trash on the table and took it away! I wasn't too happy.
Today should be interesting--I finished my pillow I was sewing the trim on, and the sexuality discussion begins today!
A quick joke--two boys were constantly getting in trouble at home and school. So their exasperated mother took them to the pastor so he could talk to them. So the pastor took the oldest in first, and sat him down and asked him, "Where is God?" The boy didn't answer, just kind of cowered in his chair. So the minister asked him again, "Where is God?" The boy started to look a little scared, but still didn't say anything. Finally, the pastor asked, rather forcibly, "Where is God?!" With that the boy got up, ran out of the room, ran home, and hid in a closet.
His younger brother, not knowing what was going on, followed him, and when he had found his older brother, asked him what was wrong. "We're in big trouble now," his brother said. "It seems God is missing, and they think we took him!"
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, August 10th, 2005
| |
12:52 pm - And the color is....
|
RED! That's right, the new Lutheran book of worship (entitled Evangelical Lutheran Worship) will be red! I predict much confusion, but they didn't ask me.
Also, even though this entry is dated today, I'm going to try to just do an entry day by day, so this is all about yesterday. Got it?
Yesterday started early because I needed to go to "training" for the Communion assistants for the 11:00 service. So I stumbled into the breakfast (it was fruit and some pastries, for which they were charging visitors $18!!!), got a little sustinance, then went to claim an alb and find out where I was stationed. Even though the plenary started half an hour later, the training was still very very very very much earlier than I wanted!
Plenaries went well. There wasn't really any voting, just some reports (Bsp. Hanson's was wonderfully interactive and rather entertaining--more on that later when I get the written copy of his speech and can quote a few things) and introductions to various proposals that would be coming our way. So we heard about the budget proposal, the restructuring plans, and the Renewing Worship plans. That's when they showed the mockup of the cover of the book, and we finally got an answer to one of the most frequently asked questions!
I brought my sewing down with me yesterday, so that helped me stay tame during the one real item of business we had. The only problem is that I could be done with it today, and that will leave me without a security blanket to keep me sane!
The memorials committee did their first report, and we started on one of the memorials that was removed from en bloc. It was on world hunger, asking the church to commit itself to advocating for eradication of world chronic hunger. But there were many people who wanted to amend or had questions about how it would be implemented, so we never actually got around to voting on it. Add that to the many millions of other things to do later in the week!
The times around dinner were filled with two hearings, each an hour long. I went to the Renewing Worship one (yes, they heard from many people that they needed to put in more harmonies to the hymns) and the hearing on the African-descent strategy. I got some questions answered, and now I can fully support both proposals. I also learned that all non-white ethnic groups are growing in the ELCA, but white membership is actually declining!
Then I went swimming for a little while before I was about to drop from exhaustion so I took a shower and went to bed.
My roommate is 23 (from North Dakota), and she will be taking up a youth minister's position in a few weeks. Just soes you know.
But there's a line forming, so I need to go now. I'll try again a little later to do some observations!
|
|
(5 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, August 9th, 2005
| |
8:08 am - 11:30 p.m.
|
Yes, that's what time we finished last night! We were supposed to be done at 9, but there was a floor fight that took two and a half hours to adopt/reject 6 paragraphs! But I get ahead of myself.
My flight in the morning went well. It was a huge plane (7 people across), and it left out of the international terminal at the airport. But security was very quick, so I was at my gate (large Coke in hand!) over two hours before my flight was to leave. We were a bit late taking off, but they sped up in the sky so we landed close to on time.
The real delay came in the Orlando airport, trying to get on the shuttle to the hotel. Seriously--one person is not enough to print out over 1,000 tickets!
But I got here, to a gigantic complex. This hotel has a large convention center attached, and something like 6 restaurants! I ran into some other girls about my age here for the youth convo, so we had lunch in the food court together (yes, there is a food court), then we wandered around until they had to leave for their sessions.
So I put my large binder together and went to worship. As in the past, this was an incredible experience. It wasn't very "high church" or full of pagentry, but there was a wonderful brass group (the tuba was amazing), a handbell choir, a great organist and pianist, and other random instruments and music. There were prayers in English, Spanish, German, Arabic, an African language, and some sort of Scandanavian language. My favorite part was the "Holy, Holy, Holy" before communions--it was slowed down quite a bit, but it was full and rich and used tympani and so it gave me chills. Then Rev. Secretary Almen was doing the bread at the Communion station my section went to! I also got pulled in by the usher to help with the offering.
A little side note--Bishop H. George Anderson had a mild stroke a little over a week ago. He's home now, and 24 hours after the stroke he was quoting the Augsburg Confession to Bsp. Hanson, so he seems to be okay.
Next was dinner. I deliberately sat with people I didn't know, and enjoyed a great conversation with the people there from New York, Ohio, and Minnesota. And several of them were lawyers! I've also been promised a talk with the ELCA counsel, who graduated from Georgetown! My connections are really paying off (this came through Pr. Sue Gamlin)!
Then the real fun began. It's a long, complicated story, so I'll cut it out. ( The Sordid Details )
So the upshot is that I got back to the room a little after 11:30, and by the time I was ready for bed it was just after midnight. So I turned off the light and my roommate, whose flight was delayed, arrived! I had locked the door so I had to get up to let her in. She seems to be about my age, though we didn't talk much for obvious reasons.
Everything we did last night pretty much had to be done last night or it would have put us behind schedule considerably. But today is a new day (though there are ways to bring it all up again.....)
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
| Friday, May 6th, 2005
| |
11:37 pm - National discussion board
|
So there's a site called ecunet.org that's pretty interesting. Basically it's a message board for people to discuss religious issues (I've only seen Lutheran stuff, but that doesn't mean that there's not other stuff).
If you join, check out the message board (called a "meeting" in this site's lingo) called ELCA HUMAN SEXUALITY DISCUSSION. There are over 29,000 postings to it, and sometimes the debate can be wonderfully insightful, other times, not so much.
But believe me, it's fun stirring it up sometimes!
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Monday, May 2nd, 2005
| |
7:36 pm - Officially Registered, with Travel Booked and everything!
|
And I bought a discounted Universal Studios ticket for the one day we have the afternoon off, but that's beside the point.
I had a talk with my pastor back home last week about various things, not the least of which was a discussion about Churchwide coming up. This was in part sparked by the fact that the adult Sunday School class finally wants to talk about the Task Force's recommendations and the Church Council's subsequent resolutions proposed to the CWA.
Anyway, during the discussion he made what I think is a wonderful point. These recommendations continue a great tradition of the ELCA--avoiding big decisions that are "top-down" decisions. The ELCA is more of a grassroots church, drawing on that strong Scandanavian and German independence and stubbornness. This is even more apparant because it's in America, where people tend to have a strong aversion to being told exactly how to think and act.
So instead of making any changes that come from "on high," these recommendations and resolutions allow change to come from the bottom up. This way, it starts small and where it is most needed and wanted. Then, as people see that the world doesn't end, the movement can grow and win hearts and minds over. Whereas if the decision was just made from the ELCA bigwigs, many people would reject it as too authoritarian.
I mean, just take a look at how the ELCA's highest governing authority is set up. It's not a council of church elders sitting in a room--it's over 1,000 people, lay and rostered, old and young, from all different backgrounds and experiences. It is meant to be more or less a representative body consisting of actual members of the church. This sounds like an institution dedicated to being a body of Christ, not just the head.
For a more eloquent way of putting this, check out this article by Bishop Margaret Payne of the New England Synod. I really like not only her thoughts on the matter, but her Lake Wobegon-esque commentary on Lutherans!
And Bishop Hanson (presiding Bishop of the ELCA) has some reservations about the first recommendation (unfortunately, I can't find it right away to link, but I'll keep looking). He thinks it's wrong to vote on unity, which is a gift from God. I don't see it so much as a vote to be unified as a vote to remind everyone that we are a unified body and to reaffirm a committment to staying as a single body. In a national assembly, a vote is pretty much the only way to do that. And like anyone's going to vote against it!
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Saturday, April 16th, 2005
| |
10:59 pm - Language thoughts`
|
|
If you have looked at the ELCA's recommendations and read all the commentary, has anyone else noticed that they always refered to "sexual orientation," not "sexual preference"?
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Sunday, February 20th, 2005
| |
9:18 pm - Visiting another church
|
I went to a church in Arlington today. I went last week, too, but I went for the adult Sunday Forum today, because they were discussing the Task Force on Sexuality's recommendations. I went to listen--I think I spoke up twice, and then just briefly. And it was interesting.
No one seemed to really express any great problems with the recommendations. Instead, there were a great deal of questions, mostly about how things currently work so that they could figure out the meanings if the recommendations are adopted, and a few insights.
One observation was how much the recs mention the division of the church. The church division seems to reflect the division in society at large. The question is, can we get everyone in the church to agree to disagree on certain issues?
The pastor of the church was convinced that the third rec would never make it as it stands now to the CWA. He predicts that there are actual legal problems with affirming current rules with one hand while encouraging them to be broken with the other. I agree that it is a contradictory recommendation, but it's not all that different from what goes on currently in some areas, or even in the US military in similar issues. Once again, a point that was brought up.
A question that I found very interesting arose when someone brought up RIC congregations. Even though there were people in the group who had been to RIC churches in the past, they didn't really seem to know what it meant. Understandable, since I had never heard of it before a few years ago. But I just found it interesting that even the people who had been in such a church before didn't understand it.
Unfortunately we ran out of time (and there are other speakers scheduled for at least next week), so we didn't talk a great deal about the third rec. But the thoughts expressed were different from my own, so I guess I picked something up!
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Saturday, January 15th, 2005
| |
11:24 pm - Task Force Report
|
Well, it's finally out. It came out a few days ago, but I wanted to give myself some time to think it over and re-read it on a different day. I'm still not clear exactly how I should approach the recommendations, because I'm not sure what some of them will mean. But here are some of my thoughts (and a summary of each recommendation):
Recommendation 1: Since we have a call to a common mission in Christ, even though we disagree, the ELCA should work to find a way not to split over this.
This is a good idea. I think that at this time, not recognizing that both sides of the issue feel their convictions deeply and honestly, and working to avoid splits in the church would be not only wrong, but devastating. But making it a firm recommendation of the Task Force (TF) seems to me a little like saying, "Before I tell you what I think, you have to promise not to get mad." I'm not quite able to express why I feel that's a good thing, but it strikes me as weak. Of course, no one in their right mind would consider doing anything other than accepting it, but that doesn't mean that I can't feel strange about it.
Recommendation 2: We (the ELCA) shouldn't create a ceremony for blessing of same-sex unions, but neither should we forbid performing such a recognition. Instead, we should trust pastors and congregations to use their discretion to figure out what to do.
Once again, it just seems like the ELCA, if we adopt this, would be almost refusing to take a stand one way or the other on the issue. At the same time, the ELCA is not ruling out any ceremonies being performed. The ELCA has long recognized that there's a difference between civil and religious ceremonies of marriage. If a state does not allow civil unions, there is nothing saying that a church cannot offer prayers of support and even blessing. By the same token, just becuase a church family says yes, the state does not have to acknowledge or go along with it. So I see this recommendation as being better than a flat no, we're not going to allow it, but it's not much, either.
There is an interesting notice in the explanation that any expression of pastoral care for a homosexual couple calling for public prayer and support is separate from and in no means equivalent to marriage. And again the call to respect differences is made.
Recommendation 3: The ELCA shouldn't change its requirements to choose who to ordain or call, but the church may choose not to take action against synods, candidacy committees, congregations, etc. who call/ordain partnered homosexual pastors who are otherwise in compliance with the requirements.
I think this is the source of the most hope and yet despair. First, it recommends that the ELCA allow certain ordinations for men and women who have wonderful gifts to offer but who are gay or lesbian and wish to make a commitment to a partner. This is a definite step in the right direction in my opinion. But at the same time, there's that pesky word may. So if there is a synod (i.e. the Southeastern Synod, my home Synod) that decides in a majority (even 51-49%) not to permit such ordinations, a person may not be able to serve that area. This could eventually severely limit the geographical area partnered homosexual pastors can serve, which would deny congregations who would greatly benefit from such calls the opportunity to decide for themselves.
In the ELCA, the congregations have the right to choose to whom to extend a call. So just because partnered gay or lesbian people are ordained does not force a congregation to accept them as a pastor, since that would be harmful to both the pastor and the congregation. In that spirit, there would be little point to a synod saying, "Not in my backyard." But I fear that that is what will likely happen. And I'm sad for it.
There are other interesting thoughts in the TF's report, but I'll go over them later. Does anyone have any additional thoughts on just the recommendations?
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Saturday, October 2nd, 2004
| |
9:28 pm - Ordination and Blessing
|
So as these discussions have gone on, I've decided that ordination of practicing homosexuals and the blessings of same sex unions go together. You can't do one without the other.
Because if you wish to ordain, you don't want a double standard. The ELCA requires straight pastors to be celibate outside of marriage, and it would be wrong to allow gay and lesbian pastors to engage in sex without a committed relationship. You would therefore need some way to recognize pastoral candidates/pastors who are in a committed relationship.
And if you only go with blessing relationships, what then prevents those gay and lesbian persons in such relationships from being pastors? Once the unions are blessed, then they are on the same footing (in the church) as married straight people.
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Saturday, August 21st, 2004
| |
10:17 pm - The Human Factor
|
Before I get started on any deep philisophical discussions regarding homosexuality and the church, I'd like to take a minute to sit back and reflect on what impact this issue has on people now, without even considering the results a decision (either way) would have.
Tomorrow I'll welcome back to school one of my gay friends. He, while definitely not anyone interested in any sort of rostered ministry, is a wonderful person, full of warmth, humor, and love. He could also tell you any random fact about MSU football history you'd ever care to know (or couldn't care less about, for that matter!). A few years ago (before he officially came out to me), he and I went shopping for a project we were working on together, and over lunch he talked with me about a lot of different things, and eventually politics came up.
Throughout the months before, as we had gotten to know each other, my churchgoing had come up. Not a big discussion, but it was part of another topic, and not much was said. But he knew that I was a religious person, and apparantly that meant that he had certain expectations about my views on the world.
As we talked that day in the mall, he expressed surprise at my liberal viewpoints on a number of things. Because I was religious, he said. But when he found out that I was not a conservative thinker, he finally felt comfortable confirming my suspicions about his sexuality.
The conversation didn't go on too much longer, because I was just about finished with my food and we had to get going. But I did manage to learn that he had stopped going to church because of intolerance he had faced there. I told him that ULC was different, that we had a statement of welcome, and he should come and check it out (I also tried to use the music program as bait, as he is a music person too). He said he would think about it, but now, a year and a half later, he hasn't shown up.
Ever since then, I look back on our conversation, and it definitely makes me think. He had pre-formed opinions about me and my positions on issues based solely on the fact that I attend church regularly. He didn't know which church, and he didn't know any of my political thoughts. The fact that I was religious was enough, he thought.
And isn't that really what this is all about? Many gay and lesbian people have turned their back on the Church because they think that it has turned its back on them. I can see how they would think this. I'm not entirely sure that we as the ELCA are getting our message of love out, no matter the individual's sexual orientation--this is an official statement of the church. I know not every denomination agrees on that acceptance, but so often I feel that the more conservative churches are the ones with the strong voice and are the only ones that are heard. To be Christian has taken the meaning of being conservative and closed-minded.
To me, this is as damaging as a position requiring homosexual ministers to be celibate. Because if the unchurched people feel that we won't accept them at all, we run the risk of driving them away for good and keeping us from ever getting to know them and experiencing all that they have to offer.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, August 11th, 2004
| |
8:50 pm - Welcome
|
Greetings to everyone who is joining me for my journey to Orlando 2005. Please keep in mind that these writings are only my thoughts, and I hope that you readers will feel free to comment in here, and make this an open forum. One rule: this is a forum for discussion, so please refrain from making the comments page a chance to attack individuals or ideas. The purpose is to spark conversation, not stifle it.
By way of introduction, let me give you a little background. In May of 2004, the Southeastern Synod (Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee) elected me as a lay female voting member to the 2005 Churchwide Assembly (CWA) in Orlando, Florida. This will be my third CWA, and it promises to be one of the more controversial in nature.
In 1999, the CWA dictated that a policy concerning the ordination of homosexuals in a committed relationship and the blessing of same-sex marriage come before the 2005 CWA. So that's there.
In addition, there will be new worship materials ready for review and possible approval at this one.
I am sure that there are many more things we will address during that week, but these are the two that I know are coming and can talk about now.
I hope, through this weblog (blog) that I can share some of my thoughts and discoveries as the time approaches for the CWA. The idea was sparked by my pastor at University Lutheran (ULC), the church I attend while I go to school at Michigan State University (hence the MSU part of my name)--Go Green! Sorry, couldn't resist.
In this blog I will try to look at as many of the issues coming up in the CWA as I can, but the primary issue addressed will probably be the "homosexuality issue." That is the concern that is the most controversial and has the most personal exploration in it, so naturally that's where a lot of the weight of preparation will lie. I will try to discuss things that I find out in the sessions we've been having at ULC, as well as my thoughts as I try to read scholarly articles and discussions on the topic.
Pay attention, though, because as I learn of other things coming up, I'll address those, too.
I hope you can follow me on my journey, and please feel free to weigh in if the Spirit moves you!
--Amanda
|
|
(comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
msulutheran's journal