As Lance notes above, congregations have already been provided model statements they can use to indicate their “bound conscience.” How is it that a collective body such as a congregation can express a “bound conscience,” but a synod cannot? If there is any other way to determine what a synod’s “bound conscience” might be other than the actions of the synod assembly, I would be happy to consider what they would be. And any objections to the make-up of a synod assembly is just as applicable to the CWA – which is even less representative.

Something that I have noticed of late is that there seems to be an assumption that the CWA’s actions resolved this issue in the church. It did not do so. The CWA passed a Social Statement which says that it is proper and acceptable in this church to hold the position that homosexual behavior is contrary to the will of God and is a sinful rebellion against God’s intention for sexual relations to be between a man and a woman in a covenant of marriage. It is proper and acceptable in this church to hold this position, teach it, and act upon this conviction.

The Social Statement also says that it is proper and acceptable in the church to hold that position that homosexual relations are a part of God’s good creation, and are blessed by God within a publicly-accountable, life-long monogamous same-gender relationship. It is proper and acceptable to hold this position, teach it, and act upon it.

Both positions are proper and acceptable in this church. This makes no sense to me, but that is what the CWA’s actions have given us as the teaching of this church.

So when a synod council seeks to act upon the first of these positions, they are accused of violating the spirit of the CWA? Not at all. Do you object when a synod seeks to act upon the second of these positions? This is a very messy business, to be sure. And it is quite debatable as to whether it can be sustained.

But do not accuse those who are attempting to carry out the implications of what the CWA passed of “spite” or of ignoring the decisions made is simply not true.

Marshall Hahn

I don’t want “our” synod council making blanket decisions based upon their interpretations of history at synod assemblies. Yes, we can learn from history, but it is the past. Let’s move forward at the congregational level.

Futhermore, let’s look at how delegates are chosen to be voting members at synod assemblies. Does the assembly body truly reflect the makeup of the members of current NE Iowa congregations or does it reflect historical NE Iowa congregations (how it IS vs. how it “always” has been? We need to look.

As another Lutheran of a “younger generation” (I’m definitely in the under 30 crowd), I’d like to suggest that some hesitancy with the word “we” is in order… “we” young people don’t all agree on any issue and “we” don’t necessarily see things the same way, as “we” are not a monolithic group and “we” shouldn’t act like “we” are.

This argument is heated enough without throwing around generational generalizations… your point would be just as effective if you were to say “As a Lutheran of a younger generation, all I can say is that I see right through you.”

Can you flesh out the distinctions you are making which allow for a collective, like a congregation, to have a bound conscience, but do not allow for another collective, like a synod, cannot have a bound conscience?

This move only prevents those congregations who would be open to calling such a pastor from doing so.

It is clear, therefore, that this action, whatever the stated motives of its creators, is not intended to “protect” the bound consciences of those within the synod, which are already well protected, but merely to spit those in the synod who are in agreement with the actions taken by a 2/3rds majority at CWA. It is also apparently meant to spite the nationwide church as a result.

The people taking these actions can offer whatever justifications they like to themselves or to others. As a Lutheran of a younger generation, all I can say is that we see right through you. Your petty bickering and political maneuvering only undermines your tenuous claim to any kind of moral authority within the church.

A copy of the resolutions as adopted by the synod council was sent out to each congregation and pastor of the synod the week after they were passed.

Marshall Hahn

Why was no mention of the Council’s action made in the Northeast Iowa Synod’s December newsletter released today?

How is information shared with congregation members in that synod? Do people even know about the synod council’s vote?

Any light you could shed on this would be helpful.

Many thanks,
Susan

Dear Justin,

Please notice that there are three parts to the Resolution. The final one does exactly what you ask – it is a resolution commended by the synod council to the synod assembly, which has the final say on policy for the synod.

The other two address the question of what synod policy will be until June, when the synod assembly meets. They stipulate that, based on past synod assembly actions, the NE Iowa synod will maintain the current ministry standards.

As far as election of synod council members, the process varies from synod to synod. In the NE Iowa synod, the conferences nominate candidates, on a rotating basis, and they are elected by the synod assembly. We also include the president of the LYO and the SWO as full voting members, and at-large multicultural and youth members elected at the synod assembly.

Marshall Hahn

I serve on Synod Council in Upstate NY. I was elected by our Conference and then announced to the Synod Assembly. If it follows the same model, I don’t think the Assembly gets to vote on who is on Council, unless there are stipulations from the conference. What I mean by that is our Synod just took an initiative to become more inclusive of people of color and primary language other than English and therefore candidates can be presented on the floor of the Synod Assembly. It might be the same should the Synod adopt the youth and young adult constitutional changes from CWA.

There are model constitutions out there for Synod Councils which includes a stipulation for removal, as do most model constitutions. The question is whether or not the Iowa Synod is following a model or their own constitution.

I don’t know if it helps, but that is what I know from my Synod Council service.

You’re not late. People are still only hearing about the decision of the Northeast Iowa Synod Council. I get so many questions on a daily basis that I’m keeping the post visible for a bit.

Your question raises a good point.

I’ll throw out a couple of others people have asked today:

How do people get to be on the synod council? Are they appointed by bishops? Elected by synod assemblies?

Also, one person wanted to know if synod council members could be impeached. It was a serious question. The individual said that “impeached” probably wasn’t the right “Lutheran” word, but it made his point.

Sorry to tag onto your question, Justin. it just seemed a good opportunity to raise things people asked me today.

(Note to Whomever the Proper Person Would Be at Lutheran HQ, Higgins Road: How about posting a FAQ on this matter to clarify people’s questions and relieve anxieties?)

Dear Mary Tabata,

Thank you for your note. You state with precision what I attempted to explain earlier on the workings of the synod council with respect to CWA, synod assembly, churchwide council, etc.

About the reporting of votes, please reread the note above in which I describe this. I did not say which way I voted, I commented that I introduced both resolutions, which is a matter of public record, since it is in the minutes of the meeting. The vote totals are also a matter of public record.

I will say, however, that I do not believe I am restrained from revealing how I voted on issues, but I will generally do that in private conversation with people. My obligation as a member of the synod council is to represent the decisions fairly and explain the reasoning behind them to the best of my ability, no matter which way I voted.

Also, I am saddened that we have already spent 20 years debating this issue, to the detriment of the mission of the ELCA. But that is the reality of the times we are in. And the decisions made at the CWA did not come anywhere near to resolving the issue.

Marshall Hahn