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.
No comments:
Post a Comment