Same Song, Second Verse: The ELCA Postpones Decisions on Sexuality . . . Again

on September 17, 2007

It wasn’t supposed to be this way.

In 2005, the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) was to vote on three recommendations by a task force on human sexuality. The resulting tally was to once-and-for-all determine the position and trajectory for the 4.8 million-member denomination as regards matters of same-sex unions and the ordination of non-chaste, practicing homosexuals.

However, a less-than-definitive conclusion to the 2005 Assembly assured the return of these issues to future assemblies. Now the 2007 Assembly, held August 6-11 in Chicago, has passed the buck on to 2009. Moreover, its actions have added to the sense of indeterminacy in the denomination. While refusing to change the ELCA’s standard that “[o]rdained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships,” the year’s Assembly has asked church officials “to refrain from and demonstrate restraint in disciplining” those in violation of the standard.

A Return to the Issues
The stage was set in Chicago for yet another clash on sexuality issues. Opponents of the church’s standard were riled by the decision of an ELCA discipline hearing committee in February to remove a sexually-active gay man from his Atlanta pulpit. They came to Chicago determined to push resolutions that would end the denomination’s “discrimination” against homosexual relationships and clergy members involved in such relationships.


Bishop Paul Landahl of the Chicago Synod urged synods and bishops to refrain from disciplining pastors and congregations in violation of the denomination’s “Vision and Expectations” document. (Photo courtesy ELCA)

Although the sexuality debates were similar in content to those from the 2005 Churchwide Assembly in Orlando, their path to the Assembly was very different. While the 2005 recommendations came from a sexuality task force established by the denomination, the 2007 resolutions were submitted to the Assembly by the individual synods. Twenty-one synods sent resolutions to abolish or relax the ELCA standards for sexual behavior. Most of these resolutions were drafted by Goodsoil, the main group coordinating the push for affirmation of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) behaviors within the ELCA.

The resolutions were considered by the Assembly’s Memorials Committee, which recommended deferment of these issues until 2009. That is the date when the next Churchwide Assembly is scheduled to receive a proposed social statement on human sexuality from the denomination’s Sexuality Task Force.

The Goodsoil activists, however, were not inclined to wait until 2009. The first issue they brought before the 2007 Assembly was the blessing of same-sex unions. The Rev. Nancy Nord-Bence of Minneapolis encouraged voting members to envision the Holy Spirit, not as a dove, but rather a rabbit, darting unpredictably in many different directions. “The rabbit is bounding through the ELCA now as we consider full inclusion,” she said. “I encourage us to put on our running shoes and chase that rabbit!”

But the Assembly was not in a mood to chase rabbits. It voted, 733 to 278, to follow the Memorials Committee’s recommendation and refer the issue back to the Sexuality Task Force.

The more complex issue of rostering clergy in active homosexual relationships followed. No one seemed to believe that the relative quickness with which the first sexuality proposal was disposed would carry over to the second. And indeed, the debate on the issue would carry over several plenary sessions.

Bishop Paul Stumme-Diers of the Greater Milwaukee Synod introduced a substitute resolution that sought to remove the expectation that ministers “abstain from homosexual sexual relationships.” Because the proposed changes were to the policy document “Vision and Expectations: Ordained Ministers in the ELCA,” only a simple majority would have been required to change church practice. This requirement is significantly lower than the two-thirds majority that is needed to alter the ELCA constitution or bylaws, as had been proposed in 2005, or to adopt a denominational social statement, as may be proposed in 2009.

Notable in the floor debate on Stumme-Diers’ resolution were comments made by two bishops widely known as proponents of changing the sexuality standards. Bishop Roy Riley of the New Jersey Synod and Bishop Theodore Schneider of the Metropolitan Washington, DC, Synod, both spoke in favor of referring the matter back to the Sexuality Task Force, despite the fact that both synods had actually endorsed the substitute motion. Their statements were met with puzzlement from many on the revisionist side, and suspicion from many on the orthodox side.

Ultimately, the proposal from Stumme-Diers was defeated 581-450. A second proposal to allow a “local option” for individual synods was also defeated 520-472. The decision to refer the matter to the task force was then approved by 83 percent of the Assembly.

Gutting the Rules
Things got more complicated on the last day of Assembly business. Bishop Paul Landahl of the Chicago Synod offered another substitute motion, to “urg[e] and encourag[e]” synods and bishops “to refrain from and demonstrate restraint in disciplining those congregations and persons who call into the rostered ministry otherwise-qualified candidates who are in a mutual, chaste, and faithful committed same gender relationship.”


Presiding Bishop Re-elected, Swartling Elected Secretary

The two most visible positions within the ELCA were up for election in 2007. In one case, there was little in the way of suspense. The other case, however, promised a change in leadership for the first time in the denomination’s 20-year history.

The reelection of Mark Hanson as the presiding bishop of the denomination was hardly unexpected.  Since his election to the post in 2001, Hanson has projected an image of a likeable leader with a pastoral heart. His calm, deliberate speaking style and self-deprecating sense of humor endeared him to the voting members. His regular use of evangelical language helped to mask his consistently liberal positions on matters such as human sexuality, immigration, and the ongoing war in Iraq.  More…

“The hospitality we claim is not being carried through,” claimed Landahl. “There has to be something for those of us who live in this context [i.e., who approve of homosexual relations]. We pray that someone here today will listen to us and grant us some breathing space to do what God is calling us to do [i.e., to ordain persons in violation of the ELCA standard].”

Eric Peterson, a voting member from the Northwest Minnesota Synod, agreed. “Let’s have a ceasefire, a time out,” he said. “That’s the fair, wise, and pastoral thing to do.”

But the Rev. Timothy Whiteman from the Northwest Washington Synod raised an obvious objection: “I think it is very important that if we are going to talk about a ceasefire, if we are going to talk about restraint, then we need to stop ordaining and placing those people who would be subject to the provision of the discipline of the church. The ceasefire needs to come from both sides, not just simply stop prosecuting, but stop placing.”

Whiteman’s sensible observation was largely ignored, as the Assembly adopted Landahl’s substitute motion 538-431.

Confusion Reigns
There was almost an immediate sense of confusion as to what this vote actually meant. Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson was quick to point out that—officially—the church policy was unchanged. “These are words of counsel,” he said. “They are not words that change the standards of the church. They reflect the mind of this assembly as it seeks to give counsel to the leaders of this church.”

Secular media outlets struggled to understand the implications. “Lutherans to Allow Pastors in Gay Relationships,” said a Reuters headline, while the Chicago Sun-Times proclaimed, “Lutherans Don’t Change on Gays.”

Further muddying the waters was another resolution passed during the last plenary session.  This resolution requested the Conference of Bishops to examine the accountability of bishops relative to the existing policies and procedures of the denomination, and to formulate a policy for adoption at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly. Exactly what implications this resolution will have for the current debate is uncertain.

Those involved in the process, however, seemed to have a clearer understanding.

A Goodsoil press release entitled “A Crack in the Dam” predicted that the call for “restraint in disciplining” would be just the first step in an inevitable process of undoing the ELCA’s historic standard. “Today this church moved one giant step from the punitive rejection of partnered LGBT ministers to the willing tolerance of them,” Goodsoil proclaimed. “We see this decision as interim. Full inclusion and acceptance is still down the road, but the dam of discrimination has been broken.”

Conversely, the press release from the orthodox WordAlone group lamented, “While the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America shut the front door for now on allowing ministers in same-sex relationships to serve the denomination, they essentially told them to go to the back door and come in.”

The Rev. Gerald Kieschnick, President of the 2.4 million-member Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod also expressed his concern at the decision. “News of this action troubles me greatly and is causing serious concern and consternation among the members and leaders of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS),” Kieschnick commented. “We are deeply disappointed that the ELCA, by its decision, has failed to act in keeping with the historic and universal understanding of the Christian church regarding what Holy Scripture teaches about homosexual behavior as contrary to God’s will and about the biblical qualifications for holding the pastoral office.”

What Does This Mean?
So, in the words of Martin Luther’s Small Catechism, “What does this mean?”

The resolution urging restraint will affect most directly those moderate churches, synods, and church leaders that value adherence to denominational standards. The Goodsoil activists have already demonstrated a willingness to ignore church policy on these matters, and have routinely acted outside their authority in ordaining and placing practicing homosexuals in church office. They will likely continue in the same pattern, perhaps with greater boldness.


Rev. Gerald Kieschnick, president of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, expressed his disappointment with the Churchwide Assembly’s decision on homosexual clergy. (Photo courtesy ELCA)

On the other hand, congregations and synods firmly committed to traditional and biblical teachings are not likely to alter their practice. It is the moderates, however, who will be put in the tightest bind. Should they continue to uphold and enforce the ELCA rules barring ministers in homosexual or other non-marital sexual relationships? Or should they take a hint from the Churchwide Assembly and turn a blind eye to violations of those rules?

The end result is the implicit establishment of a practice that will then be used as evidence for the acceptance of the behavior come 2009. Revisionists will be able to point to gay and lesbian clergy installed during the amnesty period and claim that to remove them at this point would be too disruptive and too painful. As anticipated in the Goodsoil press release, the argument will be that the church is too far “down the road” to return to the old expectation that clergy should abstain from non-marital sexual relationships.

The good news for orthodox Lutherans is that, once again, efforts to overturn church policies concerning same-sex union blessings and the rostering of practicing homosexuals have been rebuffed. The “Visions and Expectations” policy remains in place and unchanged.

There has been, however, a subtle but significant shift in practice. Can the current policy be maintained in the wake of that shift? It remains to be seen. The next “final” conclusion to these issues will occur in August 2009.

No comments yet

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.