Friday. A day of tears, joy, and sorrow.

Taking advantage of my internet time, I understand that staying up until this late hour is probably unhealthy. For what use is a voting member if his/her mind is unalert and his/her body tired? Well, that may be true. But, seeing as this entire week has been committed to the assembly, I see it as all my blogging time combining and being used now. Plus, I want to write about today while it is still fresh in my mind.

Today was a day of progression, and a time of recession. A day of smiles, and a night of frowns. A morning of hope, and an evening of dismay. How can these two opposites be? Well, it's quite simple. When some members of the Church want to move forward, and some want to stay back, conflicts arise and feelings are hurt.

As someone who is a great monitor of emotions, this day was especially hard for me. I could understand why the leaders of this movement had great hope in the day and in the statement being brought before the Assembly. But, I could also see the discontent and worry on the faces of those who felt opposed, and forgotten. I simply wish that time might put her healing hand on us all, and that God may work in us and through us and together we might bear one another's wounds, past and present, and move forward. Together.

That being said. I'm now going to reflect on the discussions of today. 

Both sides brought their appealing arguments. Unlike earlier in the week, when a lot of faith statements were being shared and fingers were being pointed at each other. Today really marked a period of self-reflection.

For those whom could not accept the ministry statement, they explicitly said why.

For those who saw it as a non-threatening statement, they also stated their views passionately and clearly.

Before I progress further, let me just explain the ministry statement. As I understand it. Please note, there are more scholarly individuals who know it better than I and who might argue with some of my statements. But, overall, I think I have a pretty good grasp on it.

Not having my notes, I'm actually going to come back and edit this section tomorrow. But, I'd just like to clarify a few things that, after discussion with my roommate, I realize some things might still be misinterpreted. 

The statement does not say that pastors may be ordained who admit to being in "committed, long-term, monogamous, same-gender relationships." Rather, it states that the ELCA now has permission to form committees, and such, that will toss around ideas and will work towards reconciling this want while still acknowledging that sex before marriage is an unacceptable way to live, as stated in the Bible and accepted by the Church. Whether this be acknowledging a legal marriage between a pastor and his/her partner, because as of right now the Church does not do that. Or, whether the committee comes up with a better resolution. Simply, this is simply a path the Church has agreed to explore, while still maintaining the strict belief that sex be saved for marriage.

That's just one of the many myths floating around that I'd like to address.

That being said. A lot of the members in the Church who feel opposed to the ministry statement passed today -- whose acceptance/rejection percentage I do not have on me -- oppose it not because they think it entirely wrong. Some, simply feel that it was too early a time to decide things of this matter. Whatever their reasons may be, as I'm sure I haven't even begun to state all of them, I'd like to assure my readers. When the final vote was cast today. Voting on the final section of the ministry statement, there was not applause; there were not claps, there were not even words. There were tears, tears of joy and sorrow; there was silence. a reflection of stunned brothers and sisters and also a sign of respect for those who feel they lost. As someone who's at peace with the resolutions made today, it was my heart that broke when I felt the hurt of those who feel abandoned. There are some who consider leaving the Church because of things passed this week. This saddens me greatly because while they feel lost and abandoned for the first time in their long relationship with the Lutheran Church (whether it be ELCA, LCA, etc), there are those who feel completely accepted for the first time in their long relationship with the Lutheran Church. So how do we reconcile those split feelings? As children of God? 

I don't know. I do know, that we have the responsibility to bear one another's pain. And, that this could be a chance for marvelous healing. I also worry, that those who feel abandoned will leave before we can even turn to comfort them. It's important to understand that the resolutions past today are not binding. They are simply what this Assembly chose was the right direction for the Church. For the next two years. It's also important to note that there are many loop holes in the ministry statement that, while they allow there to be further exploration on how to reconcile homosexuals and their relationships, it also allows congregations to ignore these positions. Because, under bound conscience, no one wants a congregation, or a pastor, or an individual to feel like they need to accept the action homosexuals take on acting on their sexual urgings. A confusing thing, right? I know. For this reason, I strongly urge everyone who even feels slightly conflicted to carefully read the statement. It's intentionally worded so that no one feels as if their beliefs are being compromised. So, if you feel as if you know someone who does feel compromised. Please, encourage them to look back at the statements. It's not always clear, but after talking to individuals on the Taskforce, the statement is not meant to be hurtful and for that reason, please don't take it as such. Of course, I do realize that is a rude statement, for who am I to say that you should not feel offended? 

On that weary note, I end my blogging. It's been a long day, but I hope whoever reads this has a better grasp of what went on in Minneapolis ELCA Churchwide 2009 Assembly today. 

Thursday. A day of serious discussion.

When I realized I was getting behind on my blogging I began taking notes. However, as I'm now sitting in my hotel room writing this, and realize that my notes are in the Convention Center, I understand that they will be of little help to me now. 

After the vote on Wednesday evening, there were certainly hurt feelings, and glad feelings. For those who worked so diligently on the Taskforce for all those years, I'm sure they felt relief. For those who supported the statement, I'd like to think that they were pleased. And for those final individuals who felt as if the statement was not reflective of their views as Christians, and as Lutherans, I'm sure they felt discouraged. Just close your eyes, and imagine. How would it feel if you were in a room of over 1,000 people who felt those conflicting feelings? Would it be comfortable? Which side would you be on? How would you feel about your differing neighbor? Open your eyes. Those questions, were a reality. I can't really describe the feeling, but it was not comfortable at times. 

The Bishop Hanson, and his colleagues, anticipating such tension, organized a discussion period between 8-9:30 Thursday morning. As always, we began our day with a prayer and a hymn. 

No matter what one wishes to say about Lutherans, I'd just like to say. They can sing. And they can sing well, and beautifully, even in harmony in the midst of their conflicting feelings. It's incredible, after the many differing discussions and viewpoints we've encountered this week, at the end (and beginning) of the day we were all able to join together and praise the Lord. Which, really says a lot. It says a lot about the respect everyone has for each other as children of God, it says a lot about what our Church is, and it also says a lot about how much these issues matter to us and how much everyone wishes to be listened to, respected and understood. 

I apologize, I digress from my original discussion. Consider me back on track.

We met in the ballroom where we've been eating our meals. A ton of tables. Probably closer to a hundred or so, fill the room. Ten seats at each table. It's cozy, but certainly not cramped. Everyone had a "prayer partner." In many cases, they were from a synod's sister synod. But, the Bishop Chair was careful not to put people from the same synods at the tables. So, we all went to our assigned tables. Met our prayer partner (for the first time, or not), met the other people at our table, and then continued to sit down and eat some breakfast. Once that was done, everyone was directed to pick up the papers sitting in the middle of the table. Please note, the discussion was around the ministry statement. On the papers were five questions. Just five. The first one asked everyone to take two minutes (you'll soon learn that everything is timed, because of course, time is of the essence) to reflect on their views on the ministry statement. 

With shaky breaths, and concern in their eyes (for what if you were speaking to an opposing brother or sister??) everyone at each table spoke. It was amazing, but it was a healing experience to be able to hear from both sides of the argument, and to gain new insight into the subject at hand. At my table, and I've heard that this was true of many others as well, we had a diverse group. From the homosexual lady who goes out to find those who feel abandoned by God's love, who reminds them that they are also beloved children of God; to the older woman who wants to accept the movement forward but feels firmly grounded in her understanding of scripture; to the four men who were older members in the Church, who all acknowledged that while this isn't a movement they would have started there is a lot of relevancy to the statement; to the young pastor who has had many gay and lesbian friends who could not be ordained because they could not commit their consciences to a life of celibacy and loneliness; to the woman from Nebraska who worried about how these movements will affect her congregations relationship with the Catholic church across the street from them; to finally the lady who comes from a strict synod that strongly opposes the statement being passed, who also admitted that she didn't find the statement threatening because they were simply an acknowledgement that something needs to be done in deciding what a "commited, long-term, monogamous, same gender relationship" means and how the Church will view it.

All of these people had their own opinions. In many ways, our table accurately reflected the diversity of the assembly gathered this week. There were some on the far right who didn't want to offend but who also couldn't accept the statements, and there were those on the far left who remembered the defeat in Orlando and then Chicago and who feel that this is the right time to move forward on the Church's understanding of homosexuality. And amidst these two divides are those who stand in the middle. Feeling the pulls and urges of both sides, some more strongly than others, but who are resolute to stand tall and strong. Because, at the end of the day, the middle is where everyone ends up going. It's unrealistic, and honestly, unfair, to expect either viewpoints to completely accept the others. But, there's certainly a lot to be said for minding each others' consciences. 

The discussion period was a wonderful time for personal reflection and development. One of the lady's who stood on the far left of the position said something very interesting to the woman who stood on the far right. It was incredibly insightful, and I carry it very close to my heart. She said, "I'm called to stand here on this issue. And that's okay. And you feel called to stand on the other end of this issue. And that's okay too. You're not required to carry my position, because that's not meant for you. And that's true for me as well. To do so, would put considerable strain on either one of our consciences, and that's certainly not right either." Now, while I didn't have a pen and paper handy. Actually, I did. But I didn't think to write this statement down. Knowing this, I ask for those who read this to not consider this a direct quote. I could very well have misquoted this insightful lady, but that is what I took away from her statement.

Moving forward. The assembly spent a lot of the day discussing this issue in quasi committee; meaning it was a more informal time. During these times, the issue that's on the floor is discussed from both sides. Each one take turns presenting their opinions. There are microphones all over the room. Two at each station; one green and one red. Speakers key in their name (to volunteers posted at each site) and then stand in line for their turn to speak.

What I've noticed about the quasi committee is that it's a very healthy thing to have, simply because it allows everyone (or almost everyone, time and assembly patience permitting) to speak on the issue. Therefore, giving people who wish talk on the subject, time to be heard.

The day ended with every synod going their own way, to have dinner together. 

While I'm sure more happened on Thursday, without my notes my mind goes immediately to the topic most discussed. Actually, saying that. We did vote on sharing communion with the United Methodist Church. Please note, I just referenced that in a very informal way. I know that's not just what we vote on. But, please also note, I will be sure to reflect more on that later. When I have my notes.

Consider Thursday closed, I call the end of this entry.

Godbless.  

Day Two: Reflection

I'm sad to say that I was not able to get internet access yesterday, so I wasn't able to comment on what had occurred Tuesday or yesterday. But, with ten minutes before I have to meet people for dinner, I will try to be brief, but descriptive. 

Tuesday Assembly:

We began discussing the human sexuality statement that was created by the Taskforce, a committee of Lutherans that was given the responsibility of creating a social statement about the ELCA's standing on homosexuality. Just a little history. In 2001 the Churchwide Assembly voted on making a committee that would address the up-and-coming topic of homosexuality. Recognizing that it is an important topic, the church felt that it was important to make a public statement about it. However, the Taskforce soon realized, thereafter, that you couldn't make a statement about homosexuality until you made a general statement on how the church defines, and looks at, human sexuality. For that reason, the Taskforce decided to approach the social statement from that angle. Unfortunately, the subject of homosexuality is extremely controversial...dinner calls, will be sure to develop this further, once I get back.

Peace.

...Continued...

I write in a continuing discussion about the social statement approved Wednesday, August 19th, 2009. The Taskforce created the social statement as a study of human sexuality. The study was mostly prescriptive; meaning that it explained the rules of the Church pertaining to human sexuality, as it is interpreted from the Bible. However, when it got to the section of homosexuality, the statement went from prescriptive to descriptive. This was done because the Taskforce could not read and interpret the scriptures while reaching a unanimous decision on homosexuality. When reading the Bible, you will find that there are seven main sections that elude to homosexuality. Those include Genesis 1, Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:18-32, I Corinthians 6:9-11, and I Timothy 1:9-11. While those elude to the sinful nature of homosexuality, there are also other words in the Bible that proclaim to "love thy neighbor as yourself" and Jesus often reminds us that everyone sins and Luther interprets that we are 'saved by grace through faith.' For that reason, the Taskforce had a difficult challenge when writing this section of the social statement. On a third note, for those who believe that homosexuality is caused by genetics, they generally do not count it as a sin because if one's born with homosexuality it implies that it is God-given and therefore to condemn homosexuality is to condemn God. Because there were so many differing opinions among the Church, it's easy to understand why the homosexuality section of the social statement was written as a reflection of the differing views of the Church. 

It acknowledges how some believe that:

a) "the neighborhood and community are best served by calling people in same-gender sexual relationships to repentance for that behavior and to a celibate lifestyle," or

b) while "they acknowledge that such relationship may be lived out with mutuality and care, they do not believe that the neighbor or community are best served by publicly recognizing such relationships as traditional marriage," or

c) "the neighbor and community are best served when same-gender relationships are honored and held to high standards and public accountability, but they do not equate these relationships with marriage. They do, however, affirm the need for community support and the role of pastoral care, and may wish to surround lifelong monogamous relationships or covenant unions with prayer," or finally

d) "the neighbor and community are best served when same-gender relationships are lived out with lifelong and monogamous commitments that are held to the same rigorous standards sexual ethics, and status as heterosexual marriage. They surround such couples and their lifelong commitments with prayer to live in ways that glorify God, find strength for the challenges that will be faced, and serve others..."

This small portion of the social statement tries to reconcile the differences among the Church. It doesn't affirm whether one is better than the other, it just confirms that at this moment in time the Church is split on this subject. However, if you look at the other parts of the social statement, you will find that it very much represents the whole view of the church. After that long winded assessment, I'm sure you're wondering how the vote went and whether or not we voted on anything else that day. The answer is that the vote was emotional, and that "yes," we did vote on other, just as important, matters that day. 

The vote on Wednesday was incredibly emotional because some felt that the homosexuality section of the social statement was in no way reflective of the Church, while others felt it was as unified as we're going to be right now. Of course, I acknowledge that I could be missing opinions in those two, very general statement, however, those are the main feelings I heard. 

As I'm sure you can imagine, the room was incredibly tense before the statement was voted on. However, you can't even imagine how tense it was after. You really had to be in the room to understand. Bishop Hanson said, as he has so many times this week, "...if you wish to approve the statement press 1, if you wish to defeat the statement press 2..." (or something along those lines). Everyone pressed the button that they felt most called to press, and the votes were tallied, and the results shown to Bishop Hanson. Never in all my years have I seen someone's face go so white so quickly. But, you'll soon learn, that the Bishop is rarely caught off guard. So, with a short pause, and a calming breath, he told us he would show us the results and then confer with his colleagues as to what the final decision would be. The statement needed a 2/3 vote to pass. 

33.3% against; 66.67% for

You could hear a pin drop. Because it was 2/3, inclusive, the statement was passed. If you think about it, it's very disconcerting. Obviously the votes were enough to get the "job done" (if you're from that side), but at the same time it shows that there is still a large majority who need to be waited for, prayed for, walked with, talked with, however you wish to interpret that. 

If you wish to read the documents voted on this week, the url is below. I strongly encourage you to check it out because it's sometimes easy, when discussing the different statements, for the meaning to be misinterpreted. And then for the misinterpreted meaning to be passed on. If  you read the documents you will find that they are carefully worded, and that's done for an important reason; so that the people's views, in the ELCA, be properly reflected in the documents.

http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Office-of-the-Secretary/ELCA-Governance/Churchwide-Assembly/Actions.aspx

That's all I have to say about Wednesday. 

Godbless.

Day Two

I can hardly believe that the second day is almost over. 

One reason, is because yesterday was so insane. The second, is because today's been so much fun; time really does fly when one's having fun. My flight yesterday was at 7AM out of BWI. So, of course, Mom and I were out of the house and on the road by 4:30AM. Seven hours later, I was walking into the Millennium Hotel in downtown Minneapolis. Of course, I'm my grandmother's granddaughter...I went to the wrong hotel. So, in reality, it was about 11:45 when I got to the right place. One thing about Minnesota that I was shamefully unaware of, it's embarrassing because my family's from Minnesota, is that there are these skyways that go from building to building in downtown MN. What are skyways, you might ask? They're like tunnels, just two stories above ground. Created in 1962, their primary purpose was to offer an alternate means of transportation during the winter months when temperatures can get to -50F. Makes sense. Not everyone likes to go outside when it's that cold outside. So. I first go to the wrong hotel and then I'm left to navigate through these skyways, desperately trying to find the Minneapolis Conference Center. Took about an hour, but I finally found it...missed the youth luncheon, but at that point that was the least of my worries. Things finally started to settle around 4PM, when everyone gathered to have worship. The worship service was really the opening ceremony for this event. I'm sure many, if not all of you, have seen at least one Olympic Opening Ceremony. It was similar to that. Just like the athletes walk around a stadium and proudly represent their country, bishops and pastors from all over the United States represented their synods. Of course, not all the pastors were out there, but my guess is that there was at least one pastor or bishop from each synod. They all wore a plain, white pastoral robes, formally called albs, so while they all might not have known each other, they looked very much like a community. Bishop Mark Hanson, the current presiding bishop of the ELCA, had a wonderful sermon. You can find it online at the ELCA website. I strongly urge you to check it out! After coming together and worshipping, the voting members of the assembly dined in one of the many halls and then promptly (at 7PM) gathered in the assembly hall, where we were had a brief orientation and then adopted the rules that we will use, when voting, for the rest of the week. 

*breath* I'm sorry, that was all quite longwinded. But, I can assure you, the afternoon was packed and busy.

At dinner I was able to meet a lot of the other voting members from the Metropolitan Washington D.C. Synod. All in all, the members are Mr. Kevin Anderson, Pr. Anne Dwiggins, Bp Richard Graham, Mr. Phil Moeller, Pr Mark Olsen, Mr Tommie Robinson Jr, Dr. Diane Yeager, and me. Other members of the synod who are not voting include Drew Genszler, Ida Hakkarinen, Darrell Morton, Kate Murray, Pr. Amy Savimli, and Robin Steinke. I wish you could meet them all! They each have different backgrounds and are incredible people, I'm so happy to be able to work beside them this week. The assembly room is set up with voting members sitting with their synods, so this week is really a great opportunity for one to meet and get to know members in their synod. Which, as a newcomer, creates a smaller family within the larger community meeting here this week. 

With rules of procedure to decide upon, the assembly stayed in session until about 11PM. Talk about a long day. But, a lot of conversation was had and at least one important issue was discussed, so all in all, it was considered a good day!

As everyone leaves the Conference Center, going their own separate ways until tomorrow morning, I think this is my cue to leave too. I realize I haven't even touched on what was discussed and decided today, but for security reasons it's not smart to hang out here by oneself. 

Until tomorrow, Godbless!

The Night Before

Bags still need to be packed, documents need to be read, and there's laundry to fold, "well prepared" is not a phrase that would come to mind right now. However, I'm simply bursting with excitement for the week to come! Mentors have been coming out of the walls; a person has no time to feel overwhelmed when there are so many people out there willing to help. 

On that note, there's so much going on this week, and there are so many things that will be discussed, and people from all over the United States will be coming together to essentially talk about God. The energy that's going to be in Minneapolis, Minnesota this week...will be incredible. My laundry's calling my name, so I hereby sign out. Expect more updates throughout the week! Godbless.