ELCA Church Council response to Metro NY

For those whose e-mail formats tend to make for difficult reading and prefer to receive documents via attachment for easier reading of the original formatted document, I have also attached this report.

This presupposes your possession of or acquaintance with the following:

the resolutions emerging from Metropolitan New York Synod (MNYS) special assembly of Oct 2005, particularly resolution C which included a request to the ELCA Church Council to "clarify whether this resolution is in concurrence with the governing documents of the ELCA".
Report of the Secretary (of the ELCA, Lowell Almen) to the Conference of Bishops, Mar 2-7, 2006, Exhibit B?Appendix One "RESPONSE OF CHURCH COUNCIL TO THE RESOLUTON OF THE METROPOLITAN NEW YORK SYNOD (2005). This report represents the "Analysis" accompanying and informing the Church Council's official action.

Discipline and the Candidacy Process: The CC's Response to MNYS.

Sunday morning, following Holy Communion and Secretary Almen's report, the CC took up the item labeled "Discipline and the Candidacy Process." This turned out to be the Response to MNYS special assembly resolution.

It was introduced, appropriately enough, by CC member, Ken Ruppar, chair of the Committee for Constitutional and Legal Review. Briefly speaking of the committee's hard work on a difficult issue, Ruppar summarized the main points of the committee's and Secretary Almen's analysis of the resolution, with Secretary Almen occasionally being asked to add a comment or interjection. In essence the resolution was found to have the following defects:

appeared to limit the scope and applicability of "Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline"
possible preemption of future discipline committees' decisions
does in effect set aside and change current standards and policies

The presentation reiterated the key point of the analysis document: that in response to the MNYS question on whether the resolution is in concurrence with the government documents of the ELCA: no, probably not. Therefore, the committee presented the following for CC ACTION:

To convey gratitude to the Metropolitan New York Synod for the resolution from the synod's special assembly on October 29, 2005, seeking the advice of the Church Council in order to be "in concurrence with the governing documents of the ELCA";

To commend the Metropolitan New York Synod's expressed desire "to concentrate on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements, recognizing the God-given mission and communion we share as members of the body of Christ" (2005 Churchwide Assembly, CA05.05.17);

To affirm the synod's stated commitment to engage with this whole church in ongoing communal discernment on difficult issues within the community of the faithful, including the engagement of all members in the practice of faith, witness to the Gospel, and service in the name of Christ;

To respond with gratitude to the request of the synod for the guidance of the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America by providing the extensive background, documentation, and analysis on the resolution (as follows below);

To acknowledge the recognition by the Metropolitan New York Synod that synods do not have the authority to establish their own rosters or their own standards for such rosters, and, further, that synods do not have the authority to adopt their own policies and guidelines for discipline, nor do Synod Assemblies or Synod Councils have the authority to preempt decisions of any duly constituted discipline hearing committee;

To conclude that the resolution contains inherently conflicting statements that may be read as being in conflict with the constitution and bylaws of this church and the applicable policies related to rostered ministry and candidacy for rostered ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; and

To urge continuing dialogue on mission and ministry issues within the life of this church, at the same time that synodical bishops, Synod Councils, Synod Assemblies, Candidacy Committees, pastors, other rostered leaders, and congregations adhere to the constitution and by-laws of this church, related policies, and existing candidacy and ministry standards.

NOTES: In the fifth paragraph of this ACTION motion (dated Mar 28), the version first presented to the Conference of Bishops (Mar 2-7) lacked "the recognition by the Metropolitan New York Synod." In the sixth paragraph the version presented to the Conference of Bishops was a milder and more circumlocutory "To express grave concern" instead of the more direct "To conclude".

At this point, a substitute motion was introduced which would essentially dispensed with the analysis of the Secretary and Committee on Constitutional and Legal Review and had the CC interpret the MNYS resolution as "not being in conflict" with the ELCA constitution et al and lauded MNYS for having found "one way of ?living together faithfully.'" The text of the substitute:

To convey gratitude to the Metropolitan New York Synod for the resolution from the synod's special assembly on October 29, 2005, seeking the advice of the Church Council;
To convey gratitude to those who prepared background, documentation, and analysis on the resolution;
To acknowledge that while synods do not have the authority to establish their own rosters or their own standards for such rosters, synods do have the authority to advise synod committees about implementing the standards, provided the advice does not bind the committee to act in a way that contravenes the ELCA Constitution & Bylaws;
To express that the Church Council does not read the resolution as being in conflict with the Constitution and Bylaws of this church and the applicable policies related to rostered ministry and candidacy for rostered ministry in the ELCA;
To acknowledge that in the resolution Metropolitan New York Synod has found one way of "living together faithfully in the midst of disagreements"; and
To urge continuing dialogue on mission and ministry issues with the life of this church, as we seek to find "ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements" over sexuality.

Those arguing for this substitute motion repeatedly appealed to Human Sexuality Resolution #1 from the 2005 CWA: "find ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements." [No surprise there, though Robert Benne's "I told you so" should continue to haunt us?at least as much as that ill-considered "apple pie" Resolution #1 will. ]

Some argued that the outcome of the 2005 CWA proves that the ELCA can live together even with contradictory documents and policies, i.e. the CWA's rejection of Resolution #3 (establishing a ?limited' process for ordaining those in committed same-sex relationships) contradicted its votes for Resolutions #1 ("living together faithfully despite our disagreements") and #2 (respecting the 1993 Statement of the Conference of Bishops that "there is no basis in either Scripture or tradition" for blessing same-sex unions but leaving "pastoral care" undefined).

Others appealed to the "well known fact" that "most of our synods have ordained persons in committed same gender relationships" and to the nearly 50% who voted for Resolution #3 at the 2005 CWA.

Perhaps the most interesting thought was that the CC was obliged by Resolution #1 ("living together faithfully") and the Human Sexuality TF's "make space" plea to "be urgent in seeking ways to live together" by finding "a way to work with this document (MNYS resolution) so that it is not in conflict with the constitution": if the CC finds the MNYS resolution in conflict with the ELCA's governing documents, then the CC should suggest how the resolution could be rewritten/revised to be minimally acceptable.

Arguments for the original motion and against the substitute motion:

Why did we refer this to Constitutional and Legal Review for analysis if we were just going to ignore what they produced?
From Presiding Bishop Hanson: "I read the MNYS resolution as trying to do what Resolution #3 offered and was rejected by the CWA. To adopt this substitute that allows the MNYS resolution to stand is to adopt Recommendation #3. I am concerned how that will be received in this church." Others, including advisory bishops, echoed these concerns: that the substitute motion would mean the CC was superseding the decision of the CWA?undermining the rules and chain of authority within the ELCA, setting a harmful precedent and example threatening the ELCA's constitutional integrity?and not likely to set well with "the folks in the pews." Some softened their criticism on this point by saying they thought MNYS acted in good faith and integrity, but what they ask simply cannot be granted. Quite a number of CC members who made clear their sympathies were with MNYS said that nonetheless the constitutional process and order must be respected, i.e. the CC cannot overrule or change the outcome of the CWA. Others were more blunt, that both the MNYS resolution and the substitute CC Action Motion were attempts to circumvent and change the outcome of the CWA.

There were attempts to find a middle ground, mostly arguing for the CC to say nothing, to take no position in regard to MNYS' resolution. PB Hanson thought this unwise: "Silence may not be helpful. Other actions may come from other synods, on both sides of this issue. This church needs a clear word of interpretation from its elected leaders. For the CC to be silent on this would be to take a position."

A prevailing majority of the CC (consisting of a minority of traditionalists together with a much larger number of pragmatic revisionists) had coalesced around the question: "How to honor the actions of the CWA while continuing dialogue (and preserving unity) within the church?" The substitute motion was roundly and soundly defeated on a voice vote, with only two or three voices in its favor and a loud and definite majority of the council saying "No."

After a break, the deliberations resumed, this time focusing upon the original motion. Efforts to make the language of the motion stronger, especially in the sixth paragraph, to change "may be read as being in conflict with the constitution and bylaws of this church and the applicable policies related to rostered ministry and candidacy for rostered ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America;" to "will be read as being in conflict with the 2005 Churchwide Assembly, and with the constitution and bylaws of this church and the applicable policies related to rostered ministry and candidacy for rostered ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America;" was narrowly defeated by a 16-17 vote (with the Presiding Bishop on the losing side of that vote, having voted for "will be read"!). Successive attempts to make the language stronger (e.g. "is in conflict with" instead of "may be read as being in conflict") or clearer failed by increasing margins. While reluctant to supersede the actions of the CWA, the CC was equally and increasingly disinclined to endorse the actions of the CWA, particularly in regard to the defeat of Resolution #3.

A telling moment: n the course of the debate over these amendments, mention was made that among the results of the 2005 CWA was the assembly's defeat of a substitute motion to "uphold and enforce the standards of Visions and Expectations" i.e. that the 2005 CWA had, perhaps unintentionally, at the least called into question the validity and authority of V & E, perhaps even implicitly or explicitly rejected V & E. The remark went unaffirmed but also unchallenged.

The idealist revisionists (in opposition to and distinguished from "pragmatic revisionists") were not done. They proposed an amendment to the original motion "To acknowledge that the results of Resolutions one, two, and three from the 2005 Churchwide Assembly are inherently in conflict, since the assembly's strong vote for Resolution #1 ?to live together faithfully' (851-127) was not reflected by its narrow vote not to adopt Resolution #3 (503-490)." Vice-president Pena, who chaired most of the business of the CC, huddled with Hanson and Almen, and then declared the amendment "not germane" and "out of order." An appeal of his decision was defeated and the question was called on the original motion which passed on a voice vote with two recorded votes against it.

The CC moved on to other business?but the issue was still not settled. A motion to reconsider passed 20-12 (with PB Hanson this time voting for reconsidering). The question was revisited after lunch with an amendment that added the parenthetical phrase (cf. 2005 Churchwide Assembly, CA.05.05.17) in the seventh paragraph, following after "To urge continuing dialogue on mission and ministry issues within the life of this church" (cf. 2005 Churchwide Assembly, CA.05.05.17)," . This was understood to make the point that the actions of the 2005 CWA on the three sexuality resolutions were by no means the last word on the subject and of impermanent status as policies of this church?two of the idealist revisionists on the CC clarified that in explaining the purpose of this parenthetical expression and its placement. This was emphatically underscored by the failure of an amendment that would have placed this parenthetical expression in the sixth paragraph where it would have read: "To conclude that the resolution contains inherently conflicting statements that may be read as being in conflict with the constitution and bylaws of this church and the applicable policies related to rostered ministry and candidacy for rostered ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (cf. 2005 Churchwide Assembly, CA.05.05.17);" Thus the 2005 CWA decisions on the three sexuality resolutions were moved from "applicable policies related to rostered ministry and candidacy" in the ELCA to "continuing dialogue on mission and ministry issues within the life of this church." It's a subtle distinction to be sure but one that says a great deal about where we are in the ELCA.

So for all that, the final form of April 2006 Church Council Action regarding MNYS special assembly:

To conclude, in response to the request of the Metropolitan New York Synod, that the resolution contains inherently conflicting statements that may be read as being in conflict with the constitution and bylaws of this church and the applicable policies related to rostered ministry and candidacy for rostered ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; and

To urge continuing dialogue on mission and ministry issues within the life of this church (cf. 2005 Churchwide Assembly, CA.05.05.17), at the same time that synodical bishops, Synod Councils, Synod Assemblies, Candidacy Committees, pastors, other rostered leaders, and congregations adhere to the constitution and by-laws of this church, related policies, and existing candidacy and ministry standards.

Note: the insertion of "in response to the request of the Metropolitan New York Synod" in the sixth paragraph (above) appears to have been a post-meeting "friendly" editing for the purpose of clarification before its release.

Final thoughts:

Good news: MNYS resolution (and others like it) are unconstitutional, synods and bishops are not free to change the standards and are expected with others to adhere to the constitution etc. of this church (though there is decided reluctance by Churchwide and Conference of Bishops to challenge bishops and synods that soft-pedal or pay only lip service to the standards while turning a blind eye or winking at violations of the standards so long as it is the case of committed same-sex relationship).
It is strictly a constitutional-governance issue, not a Biblical or confessional one. The revisionists have learned, either that they can't win the Biblical battle or that they have sown sufficient doubt so as to render the traditionalist arguments from Scripture irrelevant to the matter. The battle, in their eyes, is now strictly a political-sociological one, determined by whomever musters the most votes and can best maneuver the constitutional levers. There was not a single Biblical citation in the entire discussion. The real winners of this latest Church Council go-round were the pragmatic revisionists?and what really holds them in check is their fear of the "folks in the pews"?not unrelated to the ELCA's financial situation (I'll try to put together something on the Blue Ribbon Commission) and the authority and interpretation of the Bible (they have an initiative for that too).

Pastor Ken Kimball

Old East and Old West Paint Creek Lutheran Parish, Waterville & Waukon, Iowa

Member of Call to Faithfulness (of Northeastern Iowa Synod)

Member of Lutheran CORE Steering Committee

Pastor of two congregations that voted for the Common Confession and belongs to Lutheran Churches of the Common Confession (LC3)