September 14, 2009 by Michael Root
An important source of the confusion that now faces the ELCA on sexuality lies in the way the ministry proposals were altered as they moved from the Task Force through the Church Council and to the Churchwide Assembly. The proposals as adopted were significantly different from those proposed by the Task Force. What was adopted was not what the Task Force had argued for and cannot be justified on the basis of the Task Force’s study. My sense is that these changes were not widely noted and they help account for the vague feeling among those who oppose the changes that they have been snookered.
The Task Force did not produce a comprehensive theological and biblical argument for the acceptance of same-sex blessing or the ordination of persons in such partnerships. Rather, they argued from the presence of diversely bound consciences in the church to an officially recognized diversity of practice. The ministry proposals as they came from the Task Force fit this argument. They would have allowed both congregations and synods to affirm same-sex blessings (or, one presumes, not to do so). On ordination, the proposal stated: “synods, bishops, congregations, candidacy committees and other involved in the candidacy process and in the process of extending calls will be free to act according to their convictions regarding both approving or disapproving in candidacy and the extending or not extending of a call” to persons in such partnerships.
The problem with this proposal, of course, is that it would have been a procedural nightmare. Conflicts of conscience would inevitably develop and then the question would arise how to adjudicate such conflicts. This perception should have led to the conclusion that the argument from bound consciences was a bad argument. Instead, the ministry proposals were streamlined before they got to the Assembly. The question of same-sex blessings was to be settled only by congregations, not by synods. All the language about various persons and bodies being free to act according to conviction was eliminated. What was adopted was much closer to a unqualified acceptance of same-sex blessing and the ordination of persons in such partnerships. The only qualifications are undefined references to structured flexibility and respect for bound consciences, and the Kusserow amendment that provisions are to be made for those who believe these actions are mistaken. The initial ELCA press release and the recent news article in The Lutheran speak as if this provision will amount to nothing more than the right of a congregation not to call a pastor it does not want to call.
The proposals as they went to the Assembly could be justified only by an argument that the Task Force chose not to make: a theological defense of homosexual practice. A gap now exists between the Social Statement and the Ministry Proposals. The argument of the Social Statement requires significant diversity of practice, shaped by diversely bound consciences. The Ministry Proposals look in a different direction, toward a more uniform practice, with some exceptions for individual and congregational conscience, although the proposals are sufficiently vague to permit a wide variety of actual policies. Whether the ELCA allows the theological argument offered by the Task Force to shape the implementation of the Ministry Proposals is a decisive question for the immediate future.
Michael Root