Posted on 08/17/2009 12:29:07 PM PDT by lightman
Press Conference
The press conference began with an overview of the assembly from Bp. Hanson. We begin in a “spirit of confident hope.” The story has not yet been written, but it will be written this week. “We have an opportunity . . . to bear witness to a culture that often wants to polarize.” We are “not always of one mind, but united in faith.” That unity is exhibited first and foremost in worship. ELCA will consider AIDS and Malaria strategies. Each day we’ll study scripture, hear it read, sung, debated. We will consider continuing our ecumenical engagement by acting on full communion with UMC.
We’ve had a thorough and thoughtful discussion of human sexuality. The proposed statement “grounds our thinking in a distinctly Lutheran approach.” This is our 10th social statement; we are maturing as a church in knowing how to come together and engage life’s questions. This week we have two decisions: social statement, and report and recommendations on ministry policies. The church council has brought “a very thoughtful series of questions” that will be before this assembly.
Q: What is the central question that will be before assembly with regard to homosexuals as ministers?
In his response, Hanson said that the question was framed in terms of persons who are “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual” (which wasn’t actually true; the questioner used the term “homosexual”; more about that in a moment). He then went on speak about the entire context of the social statement. He finally got to the specific question of what is before the assembly: the “four resolutions.” Are we ready as a church to recognize that some congregations are ready to recognize same gender relationships? Are we ready to find a way for persons in such relationships to serve in “rostered ministry”? Are we committed to “bearing one another’s burdens etc.”? And the fourth resolution is specific about how we’d do these things.
Q: There appears to be a dramatic shift in thinking over the past two years (as seen in synods urging passage of these recommendations). What has happened in the church in the past two years that has brought this about?
A: “I am neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son, and I work for a non-prophet organization.” Synods are quite varied in terms of their response. Several synods have called for adoption, others for the defeat. People come here as “voting members” on behalf of the whole church, not representatives of their synods. Degree to which actions by synods are predictors of what will happen here is questionable. Certainly the intensity of the rhetoric has diminished over the past couple of years. Those portraying this as an occasion that will lead to division have not been listening carefully. I also do not believe that human sexuality defines the church, and therefore should not divide the church. There is a larger question about the authority of scripture, but our unity is in Christ, which frees us to disagree, while all being sexual beings. [Note: He didn’t really answer the question, though he took a while to do it.]
Q: Vote on rules tonight regarding 50% or 2/3 majority. Do you have a preference? Will this be a preview of how things will go ultimately?
A: I anticipate proposals to amend rules, which will allow for debate. Our governing documents require a 2/3 vote on social statement. Level of vote on ministry policies not set constitutionally. Church Council chose not to recommend a higher threshold. I anticipate a proposal to require 2/3 on the latter, which would take a 2/3 vote to pass. My concern is that we have a good discussion, but not become so complicated that the first night people who may not be comfortable with Roberts’ Rules won’t feel marginalized.
Q: Are you concerned debate in ELCA will become as divisive as it has in the Episcopal Church.
A: I’m always concerned about division, but I don’t see why we should frame the question in that way. We need to frame the question in a way that emphasizes how we invite everyone in. I expect whatever happens some will have deep and profound disappointment. The question is what form that disappointment will take, and that will require continued discussion and conversation.
Q: Full communion agreement: what would it mean in terms of congregational life?
A: One of my concerns is we’ve made the relationship dependent on the adoption of the agreement, rather than the question of “reception.” There is a danger that we adopt the agreement, and it goes nowhere. He listed a series of ways full communion might be useful: coordinated church extension plans, campus ministries, overseas mission, and (get this) “going to Congress to argue for health care and immigration reform.” Somehow he started talking about the decline of “mainline denominations,” noting during his time in office the ELCA has lost half a million baptized members.
Q: Are you concerned about the fact that individual congregations or synods may make different decisions about sexuality may increase divisiveness?
A: This would not allow synods to make different decisions about rostering; there is one roster in this church, and that will not change. There will not be an “A roster and a B roster.” Congregations always have the authority to call their own pastors.
Q: Why have you continued to remain quiet about your personal opinion about these matters? What do you personally think about the proposals?
A: I realize people on both sides have been frustrated by my refusal to take a position on this. My responsibility is to lead the ELCA and the LWF; my responsibility is to oversee this process of deliberation and represent that church externally. I can most effectively lead by making sure this process is participatory, reflective of our theological convictions, and guiding the discussion fairly. Come next Saturday, I will lead this church on the basis of what it has decided. Right now globally it is a particularly difficult time to lead, and I need to be careful about that.
OK, end of press conference. Now, two comments:
(1) OK, I lose my bet. He didn’t talk about how many times he’s met with Obama. Thought he was going to get it in at the very last minute when he talked about how he represents Lutherans in all kinds of contexts, but he missed the chance.
(2) Interesting to me how careful he was always to say the full phrase: “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered.” I’ve been reflecting lately on how that phrase got inserted into the discussion, without much real conversation. Seems to me that especially the “transgendered” component raises all kinds of issues and questions that go way beyond “gay and lesbian,” and yet we’ve not really had any discussion about whether that is an equivalent category ethically and morally, or something entirely different. Of course the horse is out of the barn, and we are all talking about GLBT now. Too bad.
I suggest members of ELCA either join ELS or WELS synod churches now that the deed is done in Minneapolis. The ELCA & its antecedents of ethnic Norske churches are the result of “unionism” going back at least to 1917.
Does “creek” rhyme with “prick”? Where I grew up it did (& for me it still does).
Well, I sometimes say it both ways, in ‘the crick don’t rise’ when I use it as a joke.
I see the ECLA just voted that homos can be their ministers now. Very sad. It’s been going in that direction for a long time, I guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.