By 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 endemic 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 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. We know that the Roman Catholic Church is 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 eposcopate. 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 liability 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. Its one step closer to what is desired by those who seek change without the obstical 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.