by Rev. Ronald J. Marshall
Many Seattle neighbors of Central Lutheran Church were surprised Saturday, December 13, 1997. They got an invitation in the mail from the church to a wedding for two men on January 31, 1998. It had been long known that Central's senior pastor, Jonathan C. Nelson, and the congregation approved of gay weddings. No one, however, remembered there ever having been a widely distributed public announcement beforehand. Also many were shocked to read the last line of the invitation:"Children warmly invited."
Over the next four weeks the ELCA's bishop Donald Maier of the Northwest Washington Synod was repeatedly asked to stop it, censure it or otherwise disapprove of it. Many were surprised by his initial reaction. He criticized the protesters for not leaving the matter to him to handle privately. He also complained that they were not open to learning from Central why they were having the wedding. He wished the protesters had talked with the people of Central instead of making a public fuss of it. It was pointed out that Luther's Large Catechism says public violations are to be handled publicly (LC. 1.284). But these old wise words fell on deaf ears.More Surprises
Many also were surprised to learn that the bishop would not stop the wedding. In his January 30, 1998 written statement he said bishops of the ELCA were "not authorized to intervene in the affairs of a local congregation, except under very extreme circumstances," and same-sex weddings did not qualify.
But most of all, many were surprised that the bishop did not disapprove of the wedding publicly. All that his public statement said was: "Central Lutheran Church commits itselfto extend ministry to homosexual persons as it does to any other person who confesses the same faith. Thus the congregation finds it appropriate to bless the union of a homosexual couple who covenant to live together in a life-long relationship based on the love they receive through Jesus Christ."
Many thought he was bound by CB93.1 0.25, passed by the Conference of Bishops, October 1993, which in part said: "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 .... " But, in a letter from Presiding Bishop, H. George Anderson, we learned CB93.1 0.25 was only "a word of pastoral advice and counsel," which need not be followed. Our bishop handled it in his written statement by quoting it with neither approval nor any comment at all.Worth Knowing
Neither our bishop, the synod council nor the presiding bishop referred to "Sexuality: Some Common Convictions," passed by the ELCA Council November 9, 1996, which defined marriage as a covenant between "a man and a woman," thereby excluding polygamy and same-sex unions. This failure surprised many as well.
This "wedding" brought two things to light worth knowing. First, same-sex weddings are not prohibited in the ELCA. You may find this shocking, but it is true. It is a mysterious, unpublicized fact. Second, ELCA members wanting to prohibit same-sex weddings need to endorse CB93.10.25 and "Sexuality:
Some Common Convictions" by passing resolutions to that effect at their synod assemblies.
Leaving this second matter for your bishop to implement would appear to be a mistake. This is because no ELCA bishop has as yet been known to disapprove publicly of a same-sex wedding occurring in his or her synod.A Better Way
As of this writing, at least two synods have already opted for a better way to build the unity of Christ's church, than by adopting the new "Called to Comrnon Mission" draft which would surrender the theological commitments of our Lutheran statement of faith, the Augsburg Confession (Article VII)-see the piece by Gordon Selbo in this issue. We include their resolutions as models for other memorials.Southwestern Washington Synod:
Resolved that the Southwestern Washington Synod memorialize the 1999 Churchwide Assembly of the ELCA to affirm a Lutheran-Episcopal ecumenical agreement that is mutually respectful of the full breadth of both traditions, and that does not require the ELCA to adopt the historic episcopate, but retain its flexible structure with one ordained ministry and an empowered ministry of the priesthood of all believers, and be it further
Resolved that the Southwestern Washington Synod memorialize the 1999 Churchwide Assembly of the ELCA to reject any proposed agreement which compromises on these issues which are so vital for the mission of the church, and be it further
Resolved, that the voting members of the 1999 Churchwide Assembly elected from Southwestern Washington Synod be given a copy of this memorial as the will of this assembly.Southern California West Synod:
"Therefore Be It Resolved that the So. California West synod memorialize the 1999 Churchwide Assembly of the ELCA to affirm a Lutheran Episcopal Concordat that is mutually respectful of both traditions of the Christian family of which we are all a part, and that does not require the ELCA to adopt the Historic Episcopate as a mandatory form of church governance."In a requested response from FaCt-POINT. Bishop Don Maier replies:
Ron Marshall has a unique ability to set reality on edge and put a questionable construction on what he hears from/about other people. Examples:
Paragraph #1: ELCA neighboring congregations did not really receive an invitation to the ceremony at Central Lutheran Church. They received a courtesy copy of Central's monthly newsletter. The newsletter included an invitation addressed to other members of Central.
Paragraph #2: a) "Bishop Maier. .. was repeatedly asked ... " That must refer to three congregational councils sending the same request to me. First Lutheran Church of West Seattle, Pr. Marshall's parish, was one of the three.
They copied and slightly revised the original request addressed to me and the Synod Council.
b) "He criticized the protesters for not leaving the matter for him to handle privately." Truth: I criticized a certain retired pastor who managed to get a copy of the first letter addressed to me and began distributing it to many others before it was delivered by mail to my office. That individual was not listed among those receiving copies of the letter. I criticized his actions. The church is not edified by that sort of activity.
c) "He also complained that they were not open to learning from Central. .. " I don't recall complaining about anything. I remember asking each of the three protesting congregations to nominate some of their members to enter into a facilitated dialogue with some members f
d) "These old wise words fell on deaf ears." I am not deaf. Pastor Marshall was the one who quoted Luther's Large Catechism. I just happen to disagree with his intention in quoting them.
Paragraph #4: My public statements amounted to a background document (quoted by Marshall) and my address to synod clergy assembled in convocation. Marshall does not report that I told the clergy: "Clearly that was not an official service of the church. It has no standing in the ELCA. It does not establish a legal relationship. The relationship does not constitute a marriage in any legal sense." Marshall is disappointed that I did not publicly chastise Pro Nelson and Central Lutheran Church. He has no knowledge of my private conversation with Pr. Nelson, the couple, and the congregational president.
Paragraph #5: a) Marshall quotes the resolution of the Conference of Bishops (CB93: 10:25) only in part. That resolutions ends in this way:
"Nevertheless, we express trust in and will continue to 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."
b) Marshall quotes part of a sentence from a private letter written by Bishop Anderson to a third person (the same one whom I referred to in Paragraph #2-b.) who had written to Anderson asking for him to censure me. How does Marshall account for having that letter? Was he copied on it? Does he have Anderson's permission to quote him in small parts? He certainly offends me.Reconciled in Christ
[ Ed. Note: Certain congregations in the ELCA which offer membership and unconditioned sacramental privileges to behaviorally active homosexuals have named themselves" A Reconciled in Christ congregation." Bishop Jacobson throws light on what the meaning of this sacred phrase should incl/.)de.}
"Reconciled in Christ," the commendable motto of Lutherans Concerned, cannot meC;inreconcHed on the basis that "I'm OK, you're OK," but on the basisthat''I'm forgiven, you're forgiven."There must at the very minimum be arecognition that for many homosexuals being "in Christ" will involve them in a process of healing and growth inwhicl1 their homosexual compulsions will recede as their brokenness is mended. Without this recognition, we are not reconciled in Christ the Redeemer, but [we are} in a conspiracy of silence in whiCh we both agree to ignore the truth in the hope that it will somehow disappear if we do.
Some Christians may treat homosexual brothers and sisters as the Pharisee treats the tax collector in Luke 18:9-14. But Lutherans Concerned turns homosexua.ls who accept their condition into the Pharisee in that story of Jesus, rather than encoura.ging them and us both to join the tax collector in praying for God's mercy on us sinners. How can they go home justified when they have that attitude?Bishop J. R. Jacobson, in The Canadian Lutheran.