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.
No comments:
Post a Comment