Volume 15, Number 3

Sexuality Task Force Makes Recommendations

Editor's Note: The following recommendations were made in January 2005 by the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality, and have been passed on to the Conference of Bishops and the appropriate Divisions of the ELCA. Recommendations by the Church Council are due to be made by May, for final action at the Church wide Assembly in Orlando, FL in August 2005.

Recommendation One:

Because the God-given mission and communion we share is at least as important as the issues about which faithful conscience bound Lutherans find themselves so decisively at odds, the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality recommends that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America concentrate on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements. Recommendation Two:

The Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality recommends that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America continue to respect the pastoral guidance of the 1993 statement of the Conference of Bishops.*

Recommendation Two:

The Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality recommends that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America continue under the standards regarding sexual conduct for rostered leaders as set forth in Vision and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline, but that, as a pastoral Recommendation One:

Conference of Bishops, October 5-8, 1993, "Blessing of Homosexual Relationships" CB93.10.25: "We, as the Conference of Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, recognize that there is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship. We, therefore, do not approve such a ceremony as an official action of this church's ministry. Nevertheless, we express trust in and will continue dialogue with those pastors and congregations who are in ministry with gay and lesbian persons, and affirm their desire to explore the best ways to provide pastoral care for all to whom they minister."

Recommendation Three:

The Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality recommends that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America continue under the standards regarding sexual conduct for rostered leaders as set forth in Vision and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline, but that, as a pastoral response to the deep divisions among us, this church may choose to refrain from disciplining those who in good conscience, and for the sake of outreach, ministry, and the commitment to continuing dialogue, call or approve partnered gay or lesbian candidates whom they believe to be otherwise in compliance with Vision and Expectations and to refrain from disciplining those rostered people so approved and called.

1) Affirm and uphold current policy and practices consistent with past understandings of Vision and Expectations, Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline, and the social statements of the Lutheran Church in America and the American Lutheran Church.

A Dissenting Position
by Lou Hesse

Editor's Note: The following dissenting position from Mr. Louis Hesse, member of the ELCA Task Force for Studies on Sexuality, was included in the final report from the Task Force. His position, although not adopted, represents a significantly large majority ELCA opinion against placing practicing homosexuals on the ELCA clergy roster, and blessing same-sex "marriages. "

The Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality should recommend that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America:

1) Affirm and uphold current policy and practices consistent with past understandings of Vision and Expectations, Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline, and the social statements of the Lutheran Church in America and the American Lutheran Church.

2) Admonish individuals, communities, congregations, and synods that any discipline that may result in response to actions contrary to those policies be undertaken with all humility in the knowledge that we see through the glass darkly. May we forgive as we wish to be forgiven. Remembering the log in our own eye, may Christian charity guide our ways; and

3) Beseech individuals, communities, congregations, and synods, who for reasons of conscience will act contrary to the aforementioned policies, to graciously accept and endure the discipline of the church for the sake of peace, secure in the knowledge "that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory to be revealed to us." (Romans 8:18)

A Troubling Recommendation
Dr. Jeffray Greene

In Orlando this summer, the Churchwide Assembly will be asked to vote on the ELCA Task Force's recommendation concerning standards for sexual conduct for rostered leaders. The first recommendation declares the issue is divisive and continued deliberation is needed. The second recommendation declares that we should continue with no 'legislated policy' with respect to this issue. The third is a troubling recommendation.

"The Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality recommends that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America continue under the standards regarding sexual conduct for rostered leaders as set forth in Visions and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline, but that, as pastoral response to the deep divisions among us, this church may choose to refrain from disciplining those who in good conscience, and for the sake of outreach, ministry, and the commitment to continuing dialogue, call or approve partnered gay or lesbian candidates whom they believe to be otherwise in compliance with Vision and Expectations and to refrain from disciplining those rostered people so approved and called."

At first glance, this recommendation seems reasonable. We're a church divided and to separate over this dilemma poses the problem of promoting disunity. Our Lord prayed that we would be one even as He and the Father are one. But what is the unity Jesus prayed for and does this recommendation uphold the kind of unity He meant?

There are inherent problems introduced through a non-policy that is a policy. When we declare that we are a constitutional church, we submit to constitutional principles, not least of which is that we are subject to 'Caesars' rendering of how a constitution is used. The corporate structure implied by declaring ourselves constitutional means that we do not invent how to use the constitution as we go along. There is a history of how a constitution is to be used in a corporate structure. We cannot say one thing and do another without introducing the very real possibility of creating gross liability.

Our church states that it is to "provide for leadership recruitment, preparation, and support in accordance with churchwide standards and policies" (S6.03), further declaring the need to "provide for discipline of congregations, ordained ministers, and persons on the official lay rosters" (S6.03.c). When we passed the amendment to the constitution a couple of Assemblies ago to grant to the bishops the right to "exercise solely this church's power to ordain approved candidates who have received and accepted a properly issued, duly attested letter of call for the office of ordained ministry" (S8.12), it was understood that we would "agree to call pastoral leadership from the clergy roster of this church in accordance with the call procedures of this church or to receive pastoral leadership from the clergy roster of this church if there is no called pastor" (CAW 7.21.d.) and that we would "provide for a competent, committed ordained ministry and professional lay ministry in this church." (CW 11.1.d.)

If we grant permission to set aside discipline, we, in affect, grant sole authority to the individual bishop the right to declare who is and who is not fit to serve as a rostered leader regardless of understood qualifications. It can be argued that such a move provides the reality of no longer being a confessional church, but an autocratic church governed by the few who know what is best for all.

A lesson learned from an autocratic organization is found in the Roman Catholic Church, which is currently being held liable for the decisions of its leaders to be pastoral in dealing with the sexuality of its rostered leaders. Even though pastoral decisions were made, they are still liable for wrong decisions. That liability has caused bankruptcy and restructuring in the Roman Catholic Church. To be sure, the issues surrounding sexuality may be different in kind, but the issues of liability are not. When a corporate structure defies the rules of governance, liability still remains in the eyes of the law. When we walk together in synods, we carry the liability of the whole.

Some might say that granting permission for exceptions to those who do not live up to the standard of our set policy is the same as the exception granted to those who are not ordained in the historic episcopate. But the exception to opt out of the episcopate has been granted as a legislated act. Recommendation number two in the Task Force's report requests that there be no legislation, so by that simple statement, it states that any bishop who would allow for any irregular ordination or licensing would be in contempt of the Assembly, legislating pastorally in defiance of set policy. Are they recommending that some have the power to just wink at our own governing documents while flagrantly disobeying them? What kind of witness does that provide when we are making this recommendation for the sake of ministry and outreach?

Will future potential leaders be immediately disqualified if they vocalize intolerance of leadership that is not in compliance with Visions and Expectation? Will this become another criterion of acceptance in order to become a leader in the ELCA?

We have a great division in the ELCA. Introducing one more layer of uncertainty generates mistrust of our church leadership. This is not productive or helpful to our mission. Talking about the issue until one side capitulates will not resolve the issue either. Granting autocratic authority to bishops won't resolve the issue. "Trust our leadership," is the cry, but such an attitude is dangerous when there is no accountability for decisions that are made on our behalf and when bishops can legislate by allowing non-disciplined violations of our current qualifications for rostered leadership. We empower the few to make decisions whether or not we find them acceptable and remain fully liable for the decisions that are made.

Consider that by declaring that no policy is requested through this recommendation, a simple majority of the Churchwide Assembly is all that is required to accept the recommendation. It's one step closer to what is desired by those who seek change without the obstacle of a two-thirds vote. By accepting this statement, a new policy is, in effect, established. The new policy gives new meaning to the sole authority recently granted our bishops to ordain. A bishop would now have the mandated ability to 'allow' ordinations of those who do not live up to Visions and Expectations if even by ignoring the ordination in place. This has a chilling effect by opening us to a new level of liability.

Setting aside the specific question of sexual identity and practice, we need to consider what a new policy of non-policy does to our ability to discipline when it is needed. A leader in the church could cry discrimination if a bishop who allowed another leader to be ordained in place, in violation of our current policies, while that leader in question was involved in illegal or (as is it still agreed upon) immoral behavior. If one pastor is not disciplined for violating church law, how can another pastor be disciplined for violating another portion of church law? If we allow irregular ordination in one place, can we remove a pastor in another if he has an adulterous affair, embezzles money or even molests a child? Even if we continue, as we have in the past, disciplining these grievous violations of what is expected of rostered leaders, can we not be held liable for discrimination because we punish some while allowing others to continue unpunished? The courts, as we have seen with the case in Texas and in their dealing with the Roman Catholic Church would not be inclined toward 'pastoral' decisions in matters of discipline. The recommendation presented by the Task Force is not as reasonable as it at first seems. It is troubling at best.

Dr. Greene is a Lutheran pastor and Editor of FOCL POINT

Search for Christianity's Essence

Compilation from "The Story of Christian Theology"
by Roger E. Olson

Editor's Note: This article is published to provide a basis of understanding for why there is such seeming contrast in the ELCA today between what is said and what is understood when we say we are confessional and orthodox. One of the theologians cited in the article, Karl Barth, is one of the foremost contributors to the systematics being taught in ELCA Lutheran seminaries. Dr. Olson, helps us to understand the background in Barth's theology, as well as the liberal influences contributing to his work.

For Schleiermacher, theology no longer dealt in facts, but only in values. Traditional beliefs that might conflict with modernity such as the virgin birth, Jesus' nature, miracles and second coming, and realms of angels and demons and heaven and hell were all gradually relegated to the dust bin of ancient theology through neglect or radical reinterpretation. On the other hand, at least now no one would be burned at the stake like Servetus in Geneva for questioning orthodox doctrines. Quite the contrary. Once liberal Protestant theologians controlled seminaries and divinity schools, scholars who insisted on teaching orthodox doctrines as facts would often be excluded as old-fashioned obscurantists.

A second common theme was the moralization of dogma. Under the influence of Kant, liberal Protestant thinkers insisted on reinterpreting all doctrines and dogmas of Christianity in ethical and moral terms, and those that could not be so reinterpreted were neglected if not discarded entirely. The deity of Christ could be moralized as an expression of his moral influence. He brought the kingdom of God into human social history as an ideal.

The third common theme is the universal salvation of humanity. Almost entirely missing from liberal Protestantism was any acknowledgment of radical sin and evil or of God's judgement, wrath and hell. The latter was reinterpreted as states of conscientiousness when humans are alienated from God and God's kingdom by their own decisions and actions. It is not that God judges them so much as they judge themselves.

Once the full impact of liberal Protestant theology was felt, a stern reaction erupted from theologians committed to forms of Protestant orthodoxy. Out of Protestant orthodoxy arose a militant theology of reaction against liberal theology and modern thought in general that came to be called fundamentalism. Historically and theologically, then, fundamentalists were those Protestant Christians who defend entire, detailed systems of very conservative doctrines against perceived modernist, liberal encroachments and dilutions, and they often call for and practice separation from Christians who are guilty of participating in or condoning modernism in theology. More often than not, fundamentalists insist on belief in the supernatural, verbal inspiration of the Bible, absolute biblical inerrancy with regard to historical and natural as well as theological matters, a literalistic biblical hermeneutic, and strong opposition to any and all deviations from these principles or fundamental beliefs of conservative Protestantism.

Liberal Protestant theology borrowed heavily from Enlightenment philosophy and especially Kant's critical idealism and moral objectivism. It was foreshadowed by Locke's rationalism and Deism's natural religion and influenced heavily by Hegel's religious philosophy of Absolute Spirit. Fundamentalism and conservative evangelical theology stood on the foundation laid by the Princeton theologians Hodge and Warfield and looked to Thomas Reid's common sense realism as their common philosophical framework. Neo-orthodoxy (Barth and Brunner) attempted to rediscover a pure theology of the Word of God free of any dominating philosophical influence.

Barth opposed the orthodox Protestant view of the Bible found in Turretin and Hodge and others who insisted on the Bible as primary revelation in propositional form. He rejected propositional revelation - the idea that when God wishes to communicate to humans, he communicates information in truth statements. He especially rejected the idea of biblical inerrancy. The Bible for Barth was human through and through. It is a book of human testimony to Jesus Christ, and in spite of all its humanness it is unique because God uses it. According to Barth, the statements of the Bible can be wrong at any point.

Olson (Ph.D., Rice University) is professor of theology at George W Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University in Waco, Texas. He has contributed to such publications as The Scottish Journal of Theology and Perspectives on Religious Studies, and he also serves as editor of Christian Scholar's Review.

License to Leave
World Magazine
October 18, 2004

St. Luke's Community Church in Fresno, California, can keep its church property. The California Supreme Court declined to review a landmark appeals court ruling in August that St. Luke's had the right to retain its property when it left the California-Nevada regional conference of the United Methodist Church in 2000 over doctrinal differences.

The conference cited a clause in the UMC law saying all church property for the denomination (even if no UMC funds were used to acquire and maintain it) belonged to the denomination. A number of breakaway churches over the years had lost their property due to trust clauses, but St. Luke's chose to fight. Under state corporate law, the court said, a church that enters into a trust has the right to revoke it.

UMC officials say they are considering an appeal to the federal courts. They warn that not only the UMC but also other mainline denominations are at risk. In California, scores of dissident churches could start heading for the exits.

Why I Dissented: Some Thoughts
By Lou Hesse

Editor's Note: The following thoughts by Mr. Louis Hesse, member of the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality, appeared as an article in the March/April issue of WardA/one Network News, and is being reprinted with their permission.

For the sake of clarity and accepting personal responsibility for my actions, I wish to "come out of the closet" with some of the reasons why the position one dissent in the ELCA Sexuality Task Force report came from my pen.

On Unity: "Who is this disturber of the peace of Israel?"

Unity in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is a laudable goal for which we all should work, but unity in some sort of fallen human entity can be as fundamentally misdirected as any individual sinner. King Ahab's quote above (speaking about the prophet Elijah) reminds us that sometimes the cause of Satan is served by pressing for unity above all in "our mission together."

"No one would choose to be gay."

One thing I have changed due to my involvement in the task force is that I no longer refer to gay expression as simply a matter of choice. This drives at the heart of a matter, which is very important to Lutherans and differentiates us to a certain extent from our brethren in the Evangelical and Catholic camps. Evangelicals and Catholics love to talk about free will sin is a matter of choices made or not made. Lutherans should talk about the bound will. We are in bondage to sin and bound to Christ - at the same time saint and sinner - simul iustus et peccator.

The gay community argues no one would choose to be gay, so it must be a created good. I do not choose to be prideful, envious, greedy, lustful, angry, gluttonous, or slothful (the seven deadly sins of Catholicism). Since I regularly engage in all of those behaviors, does that mean they are all good? No, it means, "I am in bondage to sin and cannot free myself." No one chooses to be an alcoholic, a drug addict, addicted to gambling, a nymphomaniac, a pedophile, or a hebephile, among many other things that the community frowns upon. Are these then good as well? It is an awful big leap from not being a choice to being good. A leap I can't make.

Pastoral Care: Is it "I'm OK, you're OK" or "I'm a sinner, you're a sinner, Jesus is Lord"?

In our self-centered therapeutic culture, pastoral care is evidently becoming that which makes one feel good about oneself. I'll be the first to agree that pastoral response is going to be far different to a person holding a gun, threatening suicide in a profound state of depression and despair, as opposed to a person living in a full state of denial claiming "all is well with my soul," but the rubrics of pastoral care and response must begin with the understanding that Jesus Christ died and rose for the sake of sinners. Law and Gospel are both required. Law, so we recognize the truth of who we are, fallen beings before a holy God; and Gospel, so we realize what God has done to deal with our fallenness. All else is simply denial and deceit.

"Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life," and Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Mark 10:17b-18

How do we decide what is good?

Conscience matters a great deal to Lutherans, right? After all, it was "conscience bound to the Word of God" that Luther cited at Worms. The important part is bound to the Word of God, in my view. Please note Jesus' words cited in the story of the rich young ruler above. "No one is good but God alone." I have listened carefully for a place from scripture (God's Word) where God says gay expression is good. Everyone on the task force has agreed, "Scripture has nothing good to say about gay expression." God deals with His people through the Word. In the absence of a good word from God and the presence of a number of negative words from God, I am left saying this is not good.

"I am a new thing." - Gene Robinson, among other gay advocates, or "I make all things new." Jesus Christ

What is the "new thing" of scripture? The experience of new things in the Christian community has been fairly consistently a cry taken up by false prophets. I live in a Mormon community, so Joseph Smith comes to mind immediately. A personal claim to being a "new thing" from God strikes me as an ultimate claim of human hubris. In my mind, the new thing of the scriptural witness is that Jesus Christ has power over death. He brought people back from death and He himself rose from the dead. I think that is the last "new thing" worth paying attention to.

"A weed is a plant out of place." - basic agronomy

The engineers who design a highway layout the roads and then layout the rules of the road - stop signs, do not pass stripes, wrong way signs, one way signs, do not enter signs, speed limits, cornering speed recommendations, etc. The designer has in mind how things will go best and sets boundaries for his creation to best function as it is designed. It's all designed and planned with good intentions of helping people to get where they need to go. Problems arise when boundaries are violated. What was designed as a good thing suddenly results in death and destruction when someone decides to go the wrong way on a one-way street. One of the ways a person can recognize he is going the wrong way is by the death and destruction surrounding or impacting upon himself as he makes his journey.

While the analogy of a highway system is, of course, incomplete, much the same can be said for the functioning of God's creation. When things are not going according to design, parts of God's good creation suddenly have impacts they should not have, causing death and destruction. God created things like syphilis bacteria, gonorrhea bacteria, HIV, the viral agents that cause cervical and anal cancer, herpes virus, and numerous other agents which shouldn't be a problem if we would or could simply pay attention to His road signs (His will). We can't, (we sin) and we fall short (hamartia=sin), so we suffer the consequences, which God Himself laments. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and one sign of our fallenness is the suffering inflicted upon us by agents in God's good creation. The severe mental, physical, and emotional health problems connected with gay expression and our current sexual mores should drive us to recognize we are going the wrong way, and it is time to turn around (repent).

"Honor your Father and your Mother."

My paternal grandfather died when my father was three years old. My father was surrounded by loving people, including a couple of caring uncles and many cousins, but no one could replace his father's love and guidance. My father has acutely felt the pain from this loss for the last 72 of his 75 years. He has had a wonderful and blessed life, but one cannot truly know my father without recognizing this wound in his psyche. He has always stated to my mother and the rest of us that the most important thing to him was being a good father to his children. The most important thing a father can do for his children is love their mother. It is simply a tragedy when a child is deprived of a mother's and/or father's love due to death, disease, divorce, or other dysfunction. This is a fundamental paradigm of healthy human community recognized by communities even beyond the Christian sphere.

I had a long conversation (among several such encounters) with a gay man in Issaquah, Washington. He and his "husband" have several adopted children. My final questions to him in our conversation were:

"What will your children know of a mother's love?"

"What will the children of a lesbian couple know of a father's love?"

The Judeo-Christian community has always declared this kind of deprivation tragic. Some faith communities believe it to be unimportant. The concept that both motherly AND fatherly love in a child's life is unimportant cannot be described as anything but wicked, in my opinion.

My final prayer for those who cannot see this is a calm reiteration of what must be among the holiest words of scripture: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

With all due respect,

Louis M. Hesse
Member, ELCA Task Force on Human Sexuality

St. James, Others Told To Recant
Deepa Bharath, Daily Pilot
August 2004

NEWPORT BEACH - Attorneys for the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles sent a letter to three Southern California churches, including one on Via Lido, demanding that they surrender their respective properties to the diocese or immediately acknowledge the bishop's authority.

The three churches - St. James in Newport Beach, All Saints' in Long Beach and St. David's of North Hollywood - announced their secession from the Episcopal Church of the United States on August 17 and placed themselves under the Diocese of Luwero in the Anglican Province of Uganda, Africa.

St. James Church broke away because of the Episcopal Church's refusal to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and its refusal to accept the supremacy of the scriptures, Pastor Praveen Bunyan said. The churches also oppose the Episcopal Church's liberal view on homosexuality and its appointment of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as the Bishop of New Hampshire.

The letter, sent by attorneys on behalf of Bishop J. Jon Bruno, states that the churches have defied the bishop's authority by continuing to hold worship services and conducting business under the aegis of the Diocese of Luwero. Attorneys say the churches have violated both state and canonical law by continuing to operate on property that rightfully belongs to the diocese.

The letter also demands that St. James and the other two churches "immediately surrender control of the parish corporation and parish property to the Bishop and those congregants who have elected to remain as faithful members of the church." Another option, according to the letter, is for the churches to abide by a list of rules and conditions laid out by the diocese.

In the News

That list includes holding no more services, conducting no more business and using no more printed materials such as the Book of Common Prayer. Additionally, each church must provide a current financial statement along with copies of all bank account and investment statements and other financial records, attorneys say.

Bunyan said he is still "digesting" the contents of the letter. "I'm not surprised by it, though," he said. "They're trying to do what they believe is right. And we'll continue to do what we believe in."

The church and the surrounding property on Via Lido is and has always been held by St. James, a nonprofit corporation formed in 1949, he said. "They can say what they want to say," Bunyan said. "We have the deeds and the documents to prove it." It will be business as usual at the church, he said. "Our services will go on as always on Sunday," Bunyan said. "We will be responding to this letter through our attorneys."

The issue is bound to be dragged to court, where a long-drawn, emotional legal battle awaits both parties, said Peter Haynes, pastor of St. Michael's and All Angels Episcopal

Church in Corona del Mar. "It's going to be a lose-lose battle for all sides involved," Haynes said. "It's going to leave bitterness in the hearts of people for whom that property is sacred. But at the same time, you can't force people to live in a house where they don't want to live. It's a shame."