NE Iowa synod council rescinds resolutions
UPDATE: Pretty Good Lutherans first brought you the story below in November. Today, members of the Northeastern Iowa Synod Council voted to rescind both resolutions described.
The vote was 10 to 3 with one abstention on the resolution on the “bound conscience” of the synod with respect to changes in ministry policies, according to sources.
The vote was 9 to 4 with one abstention on the resolution in opposition to actions of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.
Here’s the original story:
© Pretty Good Lutherans
The Northeastern Iowa Synod Council does not want partnered gays and lesbians serving in ELCA ministries.
The council has drawn up two resolutions.
One statement the ELCA’s new Social Statement on Human Sexuality.
The other statement challenges the concept of “bound conscience.”
Question: Can those readers with expertise shed light on this action and what it means? Is the council’s decision likely to stand? Put it in perspective for us!
____________________________________________
Photo by Ken. Creative Commons license.
Thank you for visiting pretty good lutherans. Come again!
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:36 am
Michael Root, past Dean at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, has a well-written blog exploring ecclesiology and theology following CWA09. He opposes the changes in ministry rules made at CWA09.
Dr. Root has briefly commented on the matter of the NE Iowa synod’s vote: http://lutheranspersisting.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/synod-council-acts/ – and he promises more discussion.
His blog is worth reading, no matter your feelings about CWA09. His concerns for theology and the unity of the church are the best that I’ve read on an opposition blog concerning the current disputes in the ELCA.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:15 am
The NE Iowa action is hardly surprising to me. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see a new pan-geographic synod established in the ELCA to accommodate those congregations and clergy that fully support the 2009 ELCA Assembly’s actions but who find themselves trapped in geographic locations whose bishops, synod councils, candidacy committees, etc. are openly and actively hostile to the Assembly’s decisions.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I find it interesting that people who would normally fight for a church with the majority of power help at the congregational level would not allow individual congregations to choose to, or not to, call and ordain any qualified pastor they may choose. I know all the arguments, so spare me the normal rebuttal. While we argue, MISSION suffers.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Living into the changes adopted at CWA ’09 is going to be messy. While I’m not necessarily opposed to what is proposed here, I do have a few questions:
1. If a congregation calls a person who is gay, and she/he enters a relationship after accepting the call, what would be the course of action on the part of the synod? Given that the ELCA allows for structured flexibility nationally, does the synod have the ecclesiastical ability to expel the offending pastor?
2. Are we reaching the point at which synods are becoming obsolete in the first place? If pan-geographic synods like Slovak Zion are created (and if you create one for pro-GLBT congregations I can’t imagine you wouldn’t also create one for anti-GLBT congregations), at what point to we scrap the idea of geographic synods and institute a system of networks that better reflects the ties that truly bind us together?
Just thinking out loud here, Susan – thanks for posting this.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
More here – Pr. Marshall Hahn is NE IA Synod council secretary:
http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=2465.0
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I appreciate the posts. Just a reminder that not all readers are Lutheran and that not all Lutherans are cradle Lutherans. All of us are interested in knowing how this process works, but some of us don’t have the “insider” history. If you’re inclined, feel free to simplify your remarks for a wider audience. Much appreciation!
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
As a response to Scott Johnson: ALL congregations are free not to call a gay pastor. They don’t need a special synod to do that. What NE Iowa is proposing is to prohibit any of its congregations from having that choice.
Frankly, I think that is going to be unworkable. How can we have rostered clergy prohibited from serving in individual synods? To express their disagreement with CWA decision is fine (though I suspect they had already expressed those views beforehand). To try to circumvent the decision is another matter.
As to nongeographic “networks” reflecting “the ties that truly bind us together” that just seems like a step towards severing the ELCA. In cany case, having gay and non-gay synods is a prospect too bizarre to contemplate.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Is that even a possibility? “Gay” and “non-gay” synods?
I covered the Fort Worth Episcopal Diocese back in the days when a bishop opposed to gay clergy also refused to ordain women. The theological divide only grew more bitter.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Since the changes in ministry policies were implemented with what some people say is unclear language about what exactly “bound conscience” means and who can claim a bound conscience (congregations, individuals, synods, bishops, candidacy committees, etc.???), there is concern that CWA09 opened the door for a national church body to have two rosters – a roster of gay leaders and a roster of straight leaders. That is, if churches can choose or not choose to call a gay pastor – because of their bound conscience – then the ELCA has essentially created two rosters. Congregations, choose your roster!
On the other hand, when we started to ordain women, no such “bound conscience” language existed. Women were part of the roster. Period. Surely, sexism thrived (and continues to thrive), and many congregations found reasons to avoid calling a woman. But there was no officially-sanctioned way to avoid calling a woman pastor. Yet today, there is an officially-sanctioned way to avoid calling a gay pastor – by invoking their bound conscience, a congregation can say “no.” A congregation can’t say “no” to a candidate because they are a woman, because they are in their late 50s, or because they are Latino … but they can, with the ELCA’s blessing, say no to someone because the candidate is gay.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I think this is an example of how difficult it is going to be to determine just whose bound conscience gets respected. Can a synod council speak for the “bound conscience” of all its members?
That said, this may keep some congregations in the ElCA. And frankly, although I think this *could* be challenged within the ELCA, I just can’t imagine anybody in the NE Iowa synod deciding this is the hill they want to die on.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I wonder where this leaves pastors and congregations in that synod.
Here’s an interesting link to “congregations in the call process” in the Northeastern Iowa Synod: http://tinyurl.com/yjwfevc
Note: Not sure whether the information on the synod’s Web site is current.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
(Note to readers from Pretty Good Lutherans: Pastor Hahn is on the Northeastern Iowa Synod Council.)
I appreciate the discussion here on the resolutions our synod council approved. Two comments:
– The second resolution (which is actually the first one – it was passed first) does not “challenge the concept of ‘bound conscience’”. It is more accurate to say that it uses this concept to maintain the ministry standards currently in place in our synod (and, officially, in the ELCA as a whole).
The resolution is based on the language offered at the Churchwide Assembly which posited a “bound conscience” for “bishops, synods, candidacy committees, and congregations” with respect to approving or not approving and calling or not calling those in homosexual relationships as rostered persons in the church.
The synod council simply said that our synod, based on past synod assembly actions, demonstrates a “bound conscience” which would commit us to maintaining those ministry standards among us. How this would work itself out is, indeed, a big question. But I would expect it to be along the lines that it has been operating in our synod for the last 22 years.
– The impetus for these two resolutions is, in part, upholding the mission of the synod. Part of the reason for offering them is to encourage congregations and members to remain a part of and engaged in the mission and ministry of the NE Iowa Synod. There are other considerations, but this is an important one. And, in the conversations I have had in the last week and a half, it is already having an effect.
Marshall Hahn
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
The ELCA Web site says that there are 181 congregations in the Northeastern Iowa Synod.
Here’s a link to the list of members on the NE Iowa Synod Council: http://tinyurl.com/ygnpso7
Here’s a link to the synod staff: http://tinyurl.com/yee8sqy
Two ELCA colleges and an ELCA seminary exist within the synod boundaries.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Pastor Hahn,
First of all, thank you for taking the time to write and provide clarifications and additions to the discussion.
Would you be so kind to tell us whether this vote was unanimous? If not, how many people on the synod council objected? Who objected? Who initiated this process?
Also, have you had any response from the ELCA offices in Chicago? What do you expect might happen in reaction to these resolutions?
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
A vote by ballot was requested for each resolution. The votes were 10 to 5 in favor of the “bound conscience” resolution, with 1 abstention, and 8 to 6 in favor of the “repudiate” resolution, with 2 abstentions. There was a short discussion as to what weight a vote to abstain holds until it was determined that abstentions are the same as “not voting” and do not factor into determining whether there is a majority or not.
As to individual votes, I will only speak for myself, and say that I introduced both resolutions. I was hopeful that the “bound conscience” one would pass, as I believe it is based on past actions of our synod assembly over the last 5 years, and follows the language given in the Report and Recommendation presented to the Churchwide Assembly. I did not know what to expect of the “repudiate” resolution, and was pleased when it passed. It is quite a bit stronger than the other, calling upon the Churchwide Council to refuse to implement the actions of the CWA on the basis that such actions were in violation of the ELCA’s Confession of Faith.
I believe that any response to these actions will come from the Churchwide Council, which next meets in April, and I would be surprised to receive any reply before then. The “repudiate” resolution includes a memorial to the Churchwide Council so any official response would need to come from them. The other resolution commits our synod to maintaining the current ministry standards of the ELCA. Since these standards were not changed at the November meeting, as of yet, there is no conflict.
What will happen in April, I do not know. I am hopeful that other synod councils or assemblies would take actions similar to our own.
Marshall Hahn
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Pastor Hahn: Thank you for the additional response and information. -Susan
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Pastor Hahn,
The Statement on Sexuality was passed by a 2/3 majority. Is your Synod so much different from the rest of the country that these measures are necessary?
How has your church life changed in the past few months? What has changed in our congregation is that we’ve had a member develop a very aggressive, rare form of cancer and we grieve together. We’ve had a young, single mother have a beautiful baby, we celebrate and support together. We’ve had members lose jobs, we pray. We’ve had two families leave the congregation, we mourned and prayed for their peace. We’ve had 6 families join the congregation, we celebrated for their presence in our Church family. We’ve had a virtual swine flu epidemic, we bleached door knobs.
My point is that though these things are profound and deeply impact the membership of our congregation, it is what is to be expected in our life together with Christ. What pales in comparison, is that CWA made a policy change. For the “little people” that the Church is built on, I’ll decide when we call a pastor (we currently have one and are happy) where my conscious lays and I will ask that it be respected by my Synod. Considering Synods have already been dealing with homosexual pastors for years and years, they are pretty comfortable with that process.
The Sexuality Statement simply spoke what is already happening. We can pretend that it is not and watch more youth fall to drugs, alcohol, sexual abuse and death. Or we can continue the conversations and tell ALL of God’s children that they are loved and wanted and welcomed.
I am simply speaking from the position of a congregation member, a regular Lutheran, who doesn’t understand why her Church is dividing itself, instead of uniting against Malaria, AIDS and Children dying in Chicago.
Thank you.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
I never thought I’d hear about a synod trying to form it’s own rules on gay clergy. Personally, I think it’s flat out ridiculous and should be left up to an individual congregation to decide for themselves, not others. If synods start becoming divided between these policy changes by making different rules, it sets up for chaos and deformation. No church is being forced to allow gay clergy, why should they be forced not to allow them.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Was anyone surprised that a synod with three post-secondary schools in the area would take this stance?
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Who cares… If you think you are going to heave because you hold up a sign against gay marriage or abortion then good for you.
Since when does being RIGHT matter more than being in RELATIONSHIP?
These actions to me shows that people care more about maintaining relationhips with those whom they are comfrotable then with those who seek Christ…
No wonder more and more people choose to not believe in Christ.
And if you think that is getting you into heaven, please re-read the gospels!
Thanks!
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Just a reminder to please be respectful and not attack one another. Let’s keep the “nasty” factor out.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Response to Doug Kings: I appreciate the attempt at clarification, but that wasn’t exactly the question I was asking. Let me try again.
Suppose a congregation calls a single man or woman as its pastor. After accepting the call, and serving for an unspecified amount of time, that person comes out as a gay/lesbian person in a committed, monogamous relationship.
Would the synod then follow the course of action currently prescribed by ELCA guidelines and seek to expel that pastor?
Would the synod have the right to do so, given that the policy of the national body, of which that congregation is a member, has changed their policies to open ordained ministry to gay and lesbian persons?
What power would a synod have in such a case? The congregation? The churchwide organization?
It might seem a nonsensical question at first glance, but I see this as only one of a number of ecclesiastical problems resulting from this step by the NE Iowa Synod Council.
I have another question for Pastor Hahn. You said, “The impetus for these two resolutions is, in part, upholding the mission of the synod. Part of the reason for offering them is to encourage congregations and members to remain a part of and engaged in the mission and ministry of the NE Iowa Synod.”
I would imagine there are congregations in your synod that would have no qualms about calling a partnered gay or lesbian person. Some might desire to do so specifically as a missional move within their community. How are resolutions such as this supposed to encourage those congregations to remain engaged in the mission of your Synod? Were I in such a congregation, I would feel most discouraged at the prospect, to be honest.
Susan, again, thanks for providing this forum. And Pastor Hahn, my thanks for engaging in the conversation. I hope you’ll respond to my question.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Very interesting observation, Susan. I think that is one of the most likely scenarios where conflict can occur: a liberal college town congregation in a conservative, predominantly small town and rural synod.
I have to say that as soon as I saw the “bound conscience” language last spring in the task force proposals all sorts of alarm bells went off. There is simply no precedence for synods exercising this kind of option. If anything, synodical (and bishop’s) control over the call process has been weakening, with congregations launching national searches for new pastors and not limiting themselves to candidates suggested by the bishop’s staff. This really seems to be trying to swim against the current. I just can’t see a bishop preventing a congregation from calling a rostered ELCA pastor in good standing. It sounds like a formula for chaos.
The broader problem this is highlighting is the notion of the sexuality task force proposals being a “compromise.” A compromise implies two conflicting sides finding a middle ground. In fact, however, the opponents of non-celibate gay clergy didn’t help put it together or sign on to it (and even some of the task force members bailed on it). So now, after the fact, we are seeing if opponents are willing to participate in this compromise. So far, indications aren’t very promising.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Susan , can you clarify your question your question about why there would be surprise
this happened within a synod with three post/ secondary schools? Is everyone opposed to the cwa decisions unenlightened dumb folk with no college education? Because I can tell you many of us with post-grad degrees did oppose itk. In fact, according to one of the last reports before the vote, sixty percent of laity opposed it. What is your point?
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Regardless of your opinion on this matter, let’s keep in mind that the entire synod is not opposed to having “openly gay” pastors serving in Lutheran congregations.
Also, it’s clear that the synod council was divided on the two resolutions that Pastor Hahn introduced (as indicated above). Making broad, sweeping generalizations about how we perceive a synod’s thoughts and feelings is counterproductive to healthy dialogue.
Susan – in answer to your question about colleges, I’m confident that the perspectives within the campus ministries at Wartburg College and Luther College are not in line with these two resolutions.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Jim: I’m glad you asked for clarification. In no way did I mean to suggest that divisions had anything to do with people’s level of education. Rather, I was thinking about the college students that I’ve interviewed on this matter. Almost all of them can’t understand why people are fighting. Many students don’t understand the objection to gay partnerships on the part of “older Lutherans.”
“Older Lutherans” is their phrase, not mine.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Erik,
Thanks for weighing in on the discussion. As someone who didn’t grow up Lutheran, I’m simply trying to understand what the decision of the council means.
If the entire synod isn’t opposed to gay pastors, then what options do those congregations have if these resolutions become synod policy?
Also, why would the synod pass resolutions sure to alienate young people?
Again, these are offered as friendly, can you help me understand kind of questions.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Susan – I think you are asking reasonable, helpful questions. I continue to find myself confused by the actions of the dissenting group in the months following CWA09, so I’m afraid I can’t be much help. I think it would be unfortunate (on many levels) if the synod were to eventually decide to restrict all 181 congregations from calling an openly gay pastor. My guess is that such a decision would have to be brought to the synod assembly in June 2010 — but I could be wrong on that.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:20 am
For me, two points are salient:
1) The claim to having a synod expectation for pastors based on the 1990 language cannot be enforced against pastors. Synods don’t set discipline guidelines, nor control that process. If charges would be filed, it will be the official ELCA policies, not synod resolutions, that are the controlling policies.
2) I find these resolutions a direct challenge to the regular governance and properly constituted authority of the ELCA. It’s an attempt at synodical nullification. As such, I find them very dangerous for the ELCA.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Susan,
Thanks for the clarification. For the record, please note that it is a myth younger folks are all pro- gay and this will all change when older people die off. Three points:
1) the hippies became yuppies. Most are liberal when young, many change. We cannot assume even if more young folks are for cwa decisions they will remain so.
2) There is an assumption here that negates this thesis. More churches are growing outside elca that are traditional on these issue. Even if tru within elca , elca is an old church. Youth have left in droves.
3) this stereotypes that youth all believe the same.
Jim smith
November 24th, 2009 at 4:02 am
Jim: My note didn’t stereotype college students. I stated that I was talking about only those students that I had interviewed. Have I interviewed all students? Of course not. Have I interviewed a wide swath of ELCA students. Yes.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:15 am
I am disappointed in the leadership of the NE Iowa Synod. It doesn’t seem like an appealing Synod for a pastor to consider a call to. I’m excited with the new ministry opportunities that we have to partner with people feeling welcomed by the ELCA Social Statement and also those who struggle with it.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Some random observations/questions/comments:
Is it true, as I have read elsewhere, that there have been gay pastor for decades, before this subject was “out there?”
I’ve been on call committees. I thought it was sad when a single man we were interviewing made a point of saying something about his background that was obviously meant to let us know that he isn’t gay. I would hate for this to be the major subject of discussion among members of a call committee rather than other dimensions of a person’s ministry gifts.
OTOH, while I may be somewhat “liberal” on this topic, I would think thrice before voting yes to call a pastor if I thought that a specific issue, any issue, might make for controversy within my church or make it unlikely that other churches in our town would work cooperatively with our church.
What about pastors who are “placed” in a church, rather than given a call to a specific church? Then the people of that church have no say. I know of a certain church who had a woman pastor placed there. She had short hair. A council member told me that council members were “questioning” (ie, whispering, gossiping) about her possible “orientation” until she showed up one Sunday with her male spouse in tow. So sad.
How do we get back to the topic of ministry gifts and the “call” to be a servant of God? That should be the central issue when talking about pastors in parishes.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Thanks again for the discussion and for posting this, “Pretty Good Lutherans.”
For those who question the authority of the synod to take such an action, I would refer you to Dr. Root’s blog, Lutherans Persisting, which was mentioned further back. I would agree with what he writes concerning the actions of the Churchwide Assembly.
The NE Iowa Synod Council did not create the categories of “bound conscience” and “structured flexibility.” We are simply using what was presented and voted on by the CWA.
As Dr. Root notes, if, after the fact, the Churchwide Council does not allow for synods to exercise a “bound conscience”, then they are breaking faith with the church.
I will agree that this is a mess – but it is a mess created by the Task Force and the CWA. But the Churchwide Council has no authority to “undo” this messiness by drafting something that is at odds with what the CWA passed.
As to how this “bound conscience” is to be determined, it seems evident to me that this would be determined at the synod assembly.
Notice that the resolution makes reference to 8 separate actions taken by the NE Iowa Synod over the past 6 years as evidence of the “bound conscience” of our synod. And also note that this determination is a stop-gap measure until the 2010 synod assembly can affirm it.
And as I have noted above, I would expect these standards to be carried out as they have been for the past 22 years. In contrast to some other synods, the ministry standards of V & E have been followed consistently in NE Iowa and it has worked well.
The observation concerning the 3 post-secondary schools in our synod is an interesting one. It is true that the religion faculty of the two colleges and the seminary faculty are strong proponents of the changes made at the CWA. But our synod has been consistent in opposing these changes. I have noticed a few things about this:
- It is the laity which has been the deciding factor in this opposition. The pastors of our synod are more evenly divided, but the laity are strongly opposed from all the evidence I have seen.
- It is not as much of a generational divide as it is made out to be. In my own congregations, the strongest opponents – the ones who have pushed for leaving the ELCA – have been families with young children.
- Also, some of the strongest, most articulate opponents to these changes among the clergy have been some of the young pastors. Some have not been influenced by the position of the seminary faculty, but have reacted against it, particularly what they have perceived to be the marginalization of students and opinions expressing a traditional view.
Finally, I would be interested in what folks have to say about the other resolution. I could not link to it in the link above. If anyone else has that problem, it can be found at”
http://calltofaithfulness.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/confession-of-faith-resolution.pdf
Marshall Hahn
November 24th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Thank you for the additional comments and explanation.
I’ll add this link to the main post. (Sorry, I thought it was there.)
November 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
“Bound conscience” means we won’t “desire to become better strangers” with those who are the opposing side of the Issue. Instead, we’ll recognize that we become one family through Baptism (Christ’s accomplishment, not our own).
We are fed by one common Food, the body and blood of Christ. And even though we might have strong, vehement, passionate disagreement we recognize the Other as Beloved of God.
Bottom line… neither force nor argument can bring us together… only Christ can bring us together.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Tim,
I agree wholeheartedly. And I would continue to pursue what our synod has been doing precisely because I agree wholeheartedly that our unity is in Christ.
Marshall Hahn
November 27th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Lois,
To be clear, there have always been pastors who were “homosexual in their self-understanding,” as Visions and Expectations delicately phrases it. Some of them were celibate and others were not; of those in the latter category, some were in long-term relationships, and others were not. Some probably struggled to resist their sexual impulses, others probably did not. None of this was talked about much, which gave everybody — pastors, parishes and bishops alike — plausible deniability.
Whether or not they were “gay” is a trickier question than it might sound. I have heard people (not just clergy) of a certain age reject that expression strongly, because they associated it with a particular kind of political and social identity. That objection sounds quaint today, but even within the last few years it was made often.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I have three questions:
1) Will the Bishop of NEIA choose to act in accordance with the synod council’s decision and has he already made promises/statements as such to the synod council?
2) What will happen to those congregations who are also promised bound conscience in the same sentence as synods who choose to disagree with the synod council vote?
3) Will the synod provide orderly transfer of candidates to a synod that will accept the CWA 09 ruling?
November 30th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
NEIA = Northeast Iowa
Mackenzie,
Your questions are good ones. I don’t know the answers, but perhaps some readers might know.
I’ve heard from a few parents of gay children in that synod. The synod council’s actions has hurt them in ways they never imagined spiritually.
The parents say they’ve heard the jokes about how gay clergy wouldn’t want to serve in that synod anyway. They find those remarks hurtful. They want the synod to be a place that their children could settle down with a partner and serve, if they choose.
They also want the larger ELCA to help them challenge the synod council’s action. These parents aren’t outspoken activists. They do not want to be in news stories or be named publicly. They don’t feel like they have anyone to go to help them.
They don’t know the bishop or the people at the synod offices. They certainly don’t trust sharing their pain there now that this action has been approved. They wonder why their bishop hasn’t spoken out.
Susan
November 30th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
The problem with the NEIA resolution is that it does not respect the bound conscience of congregations within their synod. The Synod itself can say that it will not extend calls to people in same-gender relationships, but as it is not, it would appear that they are denying a congregation to opportunity to extend such a call if it so desired.
The NEIA Synod should be required to reword their resolution to adhere to the CWA09 decision which would allow the Synod itself to not extend calls for its offices but would allow congregations within the synod to do so – thereby respecting the “bound conscience” of both expressions of the church.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I hear the anguish of these parents. After a moment of timid exultation at the actions of Churchwide which seemed almost to say that indeed their gay children, too, were fully God’s children, embraced by God exactly as they are. Now the NE Iowa Synod seems determined for the sake of “upholding mission” (Pr. Hahn above) to plant a fresh crop of anxiety and alienation in these families. Is that mission?
When Cornelius and his entire household listened to Peter preach (Acts 10), they had no reason to think they would be accepted or affirmed as they were. Peter–this early Bishop–even explained to those gathered around that it was “unlawful” for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But, without fully understanding, he brought the Good News to this group of uncircumcised, unkosher, unbaptized group of Gentiles … only to witness the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on all of them–exactly as they were.
In that moment, Peter–this early Bishop–led the church forward into unmarked (i.e., wholly gracious) territory because he was willing to see and affirm the movement of the Spirit among people that his entire tradition had taught him were unacceptable to God. Peter’s words and actions were essential because the scene in Acts 10 only takes place because the community of believers from Joppa had followed their Bishop over to Cornelius’ household.
The people followed the Bishop into a moment where all of them were met by the Surprise of God–and where their Bishop had the courage to lead them INTO that Surprise rather than away from it.
When Bishop Ullestad speaks out on the actions of the NE Iowa Synod Council I hope his words echo Peter’s: “Can anyone withhold full inclusion in the people of God for these ones who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
November 30th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I worked under a gay pastor in the Missouri Synod in 1970. During the summer, it was my job to be his designated driver to weekly gay clergy socials. I also served in a conference with two partnered gay clergy. One was newly ordained, the other had been in relationship for over 20 years. I have also known gay clergy who served the church in the 60′s who were married to women and ended up leaving the ministry. Tain’t nothing new here except for the fact that gay clergy can now be openly in relationship.
I do not believe that a Synod Council can prevent a congregation from calling a particular pastor as long as that pastor is rostered.
The concept of a bound conscience predates the existence of the Lutheran church. Just because it didn’t get the pr it recently has doesn’t mean it is new. There are congregations who have been using it (perhaps in different words) to refuse women pastors.
I also think that the actions of NE Iowa Synod are, at best, embarassing.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
How do we demonstrate grace/honor towards brothers/sisters we believe are wrong? I haven’t figured out how to do this yet. Tim
November 30th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Iowa is one of the states that permits same-sex marriage. I wonder if that had any bearing on the synod council’s thinking.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Tim,
I’m not sure what your position is, but the fact that you ask this question demonstrates that you must have a kind and compassionate heart.
Susan
November 30th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
David,
Thank you for this reflection and your empathy for the families.
Why do you think the bishop hasn’t said anything? If he was outraged or disagreed with the synod council’s actions, wouldn’t he have said so immediately?
Or did he speak out and we just missed it?
Just wondering.
Susan
November 30th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Good discussion.
A Bishop is the theological head (and one hopes, to some extent, the heart) of a Synod. A Synod Council is the board of directors, and the Synod Vice President is the Chair of that Board. So, technically, the Bishop reports to his/her Synod Council and therefore the VP. At least one of my Bishops would have agreed with that, well maybe both when I was in the Chair.
Anyway, constitutionally, the action that was adopted by NE Iowa’s Council will go directly to the Church Council (CC) of the ELCA. To “demystify” (or maybe confuse more…) the way that the Church talks to “itself” is that a Synod Assembly (highest authority within the Synod) talks to the Churchwide Assembly (highest authority within the ELCA). A Synod Council (SC) can “talk” by sending a “memorial”, this is basically a resolution voted and adopted at a SC meeting, directly to the CC. The CC will respond, and usually even if a memorial is “out of order” or out of line with the Constitution and other governing documents, the CC will respond somehow. In order to not be voted in the “en bloc” (meaning, all of you all making the same type of resolution get the same response), it has to be removed to be discussed on the floor of the CC meeting.
Yes, a procedure wonk I remain, after retiring from church work.
I am saddened by this for the impetus it will give to others who may feel this same way. Are we going to spend the next 20 years still fighting about the who of who is doing ministry, or are we going to do ministry?
Also, with due respect to Rev. Secretary Hahn, a SC decision is a corporate decision, and you are not supposed to parse out how you voted though the totals can be reported. Synod Council 101. All the VPs were trained and all of my sitting Synod Council classes were trained that this is the case. Precisely because you don’t say, “Don’t ask me, I didn’t vote For or Against…” whatever it is. Ordination. Mission Support.
If Bp. Steve spoke, you would definitely hear it. Maybe he’s just practicing “corporate decision” above. The Bishop, by the way, does not have to vote unless it’s a tie.
And that’s the way it is.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Dear MacKenzie,
You ask some good questions. First of all, let me say that this whole issue has been discussed at some length and in some considerable depth in our synod for several years. And that discussion has been characterized by a remarkable degree of civility and respect on both sides, with a desire to allow all voices to be heard. I give our bishop a large share of credit for maintaining a high level of discourse and respect throughout this debate. As to your questions:
1) I would expect our bishop to uphold the decisions of the synod council if they are allowed to stand. He has always worked to carry out the decisions of the church as faithfully as he can, and I do not see any reason to expect this would be any different.
2) This is the real dilemma, isn’t it? And it is the dilemma created by the CWA actions, not by the NE Iowa Synod Council. If congregations are able to call a pastor who would be in violation of the synod’s standards on the basis of their “bound conscience”, then the “bound conscience” of the synod would be violated. If congregations are not able to call a pastor they choose due to the “bound conscience” of the synod, then the “bound conscience” of the congregation has been violated. What is the answer?
Please note carefully that neither the Social Statement nor the Resolutions on Ministry Policies prioritize these “bound consciences.” And according to each document the position that persons in same-sex relationships ought to be eligible for ordination is no more valid than the position that persons in same-sex relationships ought not to be eligible for ordination. These are equally valid positions according to the documents passed at the CWA. So one is not weighed more heavily than the other. So, what do we do? I do not know the answer.
One way to look at it is to give weight to the value of having a unified ministerium, as much as possible. In this view, the CWA actions have chosen not to create a unified ministerium with respect to this question for the whole church. They could have done so, but did not. Then, it is up to the synods to decide whether or not they wish to create a unified ministerium within their synod. If they choose to create a unified standard, as the NE Iowa synod council proposes, then that will be the standard within that synod. If a synod does not choose to create such a unified standard, then the congregations may do as they choose. This is just one way of dealing with it, and I am sure there will be other suggestions.
3) The 3rd question raises the question as to the relationship between synods with different standards. This is also a tricky question. Although I would take issue with the way you frame it. If you are referring to the “bound conscience” resolution the NE Iowa Synod council adopted, this resolution does accept the CWA ruling. The resolution specifically cites the language in the documents approved at the CWA to explain the action taken.
And you are quite right that procedures would need to be developed to facilitate movement between synods with differing standards – in both directions.
Thank you for raising these issues. They are things that will need to be decided if there is any chance of carrying out the CWA’s commitment to respect the bound conscience of all.
Marshall Hahn
November 30th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
CWA09 directed members of the ELCA to respect the “bound conscience” of those with whom they differ. The problem is that the “bound conscience” language stems from a statement by Martin Luther, whose conscience was bound to a particular understanding of the Bible.
Today’s “bound conscience” language seems to refer to a conscience bound to whatever your opinion is, whether based on your understanding of the Bible, certain scientific studies (both sides), personal experience, sentiment, or any combination of these or other bases.
I have seen little respect given to those who operate under the older understanding of the “bound conscience.” Instead, accusations of hatred, bigotry, meanness, unenlightenment, and hardness of heart are scattered rather liberally toward any who dare to speak their “traditional” understanding of the scriptures.
The Northeast Iowa synod elected its council members, bishop, and other officers. These elected leaders are charged with leadership responsibilities which they are fulfilling as faithfully as they can in a difficult and trying time, when people are passionately disagreeing on what they see to be matters of truth.
God is merciful! Thank God for that!
November 30th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Note: Pastor Hahn is on the Northeast Iowa Synod Council.
Pastor Hahn,
Thank you for weighing in on the discussion and letting readers hear more about the council’s decision.
Susan
November 30th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Readers,
I’m taking any words in all caps and putting them in lowercase or italics. In typed messages the uppercase letters makes some of us feel as if we’re being shouted at, though you may simply be writing that way to emphasize a point.
I appreciate the tone of respect that you’ve maintained here. It’s allowed for a helpful, informative discussion.
Almost every day, I receive e-mail from ELCA members asking about the decision of the Northeast Iowa Synod Council. It’s nice that they have reference material here to help them sort through what it might mean.
Much appreciation,
Susan
December 1st, 2009 at 8:18 am
Timothy,
Thank you for asking that question. I can only speak from my experience. First, I am comfortably in my own belief. I found Biblical instruction, God spoke to my heart, and I made my decision about where I stand on issues of same gender relationships and ordination. There were several key scriptures that spoke to my heart.
Second, I felt that God led me to my opinion and so I could open my heart to understand how the people who disagreed with me felt. I did come in with many judgments and prejudices, but I listened, empathized and prayed. At the end of the day, God made us all in His image and He loves us all dearly. He also knew in His infinite wisdom, to cut us from different molds.
Who am I to say that I am the expert on understanding what God tells anyone else’s heart? In my world I can disagree and judge and question other’s behaviors. But in God’s world, which is the standard that I struggle to live up to, these are still my brothers and sisters, and in Christ there is love.
I have respectful conversation about how the people who disagree with me came to feel how they feel. We laugh together, we pray together, we love one another, we simply understand that God speaks differently to different people’s hearts. If conversation comes from a place of love and respect, it will be a good conversation.
Blessings on your process – it certainly is not an easy one.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:08 am
(Note to readers from Pretty Good Lutherans: Mary Tabata is a former ELCA Church Council member and Pastor Hahn is on the council of the Northeast Iowa Synod.)
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
December 1st, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I know I am late into the conversation, but doesn’t this resolution have to go to the people of Northeast Iowa Synod in a Synod Assembly? Is this step being skipped?
December 1st, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Justin,
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?)
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:16 am
Hey Susan,
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
Justin: Thanks for the additional info.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
(Note to readers from Pretty Good Leaders: Pastor Hahn is on the Northeast Iowa Synod Council.)
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
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Pastor 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
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Dear Susan,
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
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Oh, that’s good information. I didn’t understand what the mechanism was for informing church members. Thanks for the clarification.
February 1st, 2010 at 10:22 am
All I can say is that the idea that a synod has a “bound conscience” is absurd and defies the most basic definition of a conscience. A synod council cannot possibly speak for all the consciences of the individuals and congregations within it. As it is, congregations whose members find themselves bound by conscience to refuse an LGBT pastor in a committed relationship may already do so.
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.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Ben,
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?
February 1st, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Ben,
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.”
February 1st, 2010 at 4:29 pm
As neither a cradle Lutheran nor one in a younger generation (unless under 40 counts), I do belong to a congregation in NE Iowa. I moved back to Iowa last year in between the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage and CWA09, both of which are greatly encouraging for our country, region and state.
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.
February 1st, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Rachel: Great points. Thanks for posting. -Susan
February 4th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
There was and is no intention in the original synod council resolutions to “spite” anyone. They were presented to be in line with what the CWA approved – which included language that includes synods as those whose “bound conscience” is to be honored. If there is a problem with that, it is with the language approved in August.
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