Because I've received numerous inquires about last week's Churchwide Assembly, and because the secular press and various web-postings have reported on the Assembly in odd and sometimes sensational (and inaccurate) ways, I feel compelled to share a few thoughts. I have revised a summation written by Bishop Peter Rogness that provides information of Assembly action. It is somewhat lengthy, but well worth the time to read.

What Happened at the Assembly

Contrary to some news postings, sexuality and ministry wasn't the only thing we talked about and acted upon! Presiding Bishop, Mark Hanson, was re-elected on the second ballot to a second term with a resounding 86 percent vote (he was two votes shy of the percentage necessary to be re-elected on the nominating ballot). In the far more dramatic election, attorney David Swartling of Seattle was elected to succeed the only secretary the ELCA has had in its 20 years, the Rev. Lowell Almen. David Swartling is a delightful, warm, intelligent, deeply spiritual, and deeply involved person of faith. In addition, voting members worshiped; we committed ourselves to a far-reaching emphasis on deepening our church's immersion in Scripture; we deliberated Iraq and the Middle East; we adopted a social statement on education; and we took on new resolve in fighting the HIV-AIDS pandemic. We celebrated rapid growth in responding to world hunger and disasters and pledged to do even more. In short, we celebrated the vast array of ministries we do together as a church, ministries that are profound, deep, and worldwide. 

The Sexuality Discussion

Here are two headlines that were posted immediately after the Assembly adjourned, representative of the unfortunate way matters of sexuality were reported:

"Lutherans to Allow Pastors in Gay Relationships"

"Lutherans Don't Change on Gays"

No wonder some people might be confused! What follows is some background information and a quick walkthrough as to what actually occurred at the Assembly.

Background

In 2001, the Churchwide Assembly (CWA) set in place a task force to bring back recommendations to the 2005 CWA regarding blessing same-gender relationships and ordaining faithfully partnered gay clergy and to bring a social statement on human sexuality to the 2009 CWA. The 2005 CWA received three recommendations on these issues and in response voted to (1) continue to find ways to live together faithfully in the face of our differences; (2) let the matter of blessings be a matter of local pastoral care and did not establish such a rite for the whole church; and (3) decided against allowing partnered gay and lesbian clergy to be ordained and serve in the church.

The general expectation was that these matters would again be discussed in 2009 in connection with the social statement. However, last winter a discipline committee in Atlanta, in acting to remove a partnered gay pastor, recommended that Synods memorialize this Assembly to change policy. So, it was before us again. Twenty-one Synods took actions asking that the process for such change be set in motion.

What Happened

The memorials committee bundled these resolutions together and recommended that they simply be referred as information to the task force in their deliberations leading up to 2009. Not surprisingly, a substitute motion was made on the floor reflecting the 21-Synod request to set in motion a change in policy. (Now here's where you should pay attention if you're trying to sort out what news sound bytes are saying in different directions!)

After lengthy debate, both in a non-legislative "committee of the whole" and formal parliamentary proceedings, the assembly defeated the motion to change policy, and instead supported the recommendation to simply refer all this to the task force working on the social statement. The motion to change the policy failed 450-581.

Then a motion was made to allow a process of exceptions to the policy for the sake of mission in local situations, patterned after the exception process to the requirement of ordination by a bishop. This exception proposal was also rejected, 472-520.

Thus, it was clear that the Assembly was staying with the process to come forward with a social statement in 2009, and not to consider any change in policy until such a statement is adopted, so that policy made can be consistent with that statement. So the study process continues. (An amending action was taken to specifically ask the social statement to address these matters.)

On a later set of memorials, the assembly passed a motion which is the basis for the news reports suggesting ELCA policy has changed. An action was taken in which the assembly "prays, urges, and encourages Synods, synodical bishops, and the presiding bishop to refrain from or demonstrate restraint in disciplining those" congregations and pastors that are not in compliance with existing policy. Bishop Hanson was asked if this was in conflict with existing governing documents, and Secretary Almen explained that it was not.

This is, frankly, where reporters not familiar with the nuances of ELCA governing documents got it all wrong. Our documents regarding discipline have within them a number of possibilities of response to policy non-compliance, including personal consultation, admonition, formal charges, and suspension, with few timelines and no "sentencing guidelines" (to use the secular image). The effect of this action is not to give permission to defy policy, but to ask that as bishops and others ponder responses to these situations, that they lean in the direction of a less harsh rather than a more harsh response.

Bottom Line

An accurate sound byte would say this: This Assembly chose to stay with the process we've put in place that will lead us to a far reaching (i.e., much broader than simply homosexuality) discussion of human sexuality in 2009, and in that light we will consider these policy matters. Until that time, the Assembly said, let's stay with current policy, and let's walk gently with each other. It was an action that honored the most strongly supported action of two years ago: our commitment to find ways to live together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements. It was a respectful expression of our commitment to continue to find ways to be a church together.

Thank You!

The 22 voting members from the Northwest Synod of Wisconsin were certainly not of one mind on the above matters of sexuality, and yet, along with all 1,071 voting members, we participated in civil, passionate, thoughtful discussion; we prayed together, ate at the Lord's supper together; and trusting that God's Spirit guides and sustains the church, made decisions on behalf of the whole church. In other words, even in our differences, we were and are the church, united by a common faith in Christ, not through our like-mindedness. Speak with any of the voting members and they will tell you about the awesomeness of our denomination, the vast array of ministry that we do close to home and to the ends of the earth, and how the Spirit blows mightily through all of us.

My thanks to the folks listed below who gave up a full week to participate in the highest legislative body of our church. When you have a chance, personally thank them for their commitment, hard work, and Spirit-filled participation.

Bishop Duane Pederson

2007 Voting Members

Al Arndt, Milltown

Kay Erickson, Amery, (replaced Craig Euneau during the Assembly)

Jean Gfall, River Falls

Robert Giese, Ogema

Larry Gilbertson, Marshfield

David Halaas, Cumberland

Lara Haugen, Barron

Maggie Isaacson, Centuria

Ken Johnson, Superior

Joyce LeVoy, Stratford

Lois Michaelson, River Falls

Dale Moe, Pigeon Falls

Elaine Moore, Eau Claire

Scott Needham, New Richmond

Connie Pederson, Eleva

Brad Peterson, Boyceville

Arnold Rogstad, Augusta

Tim Voigts, Pepin

Dorene Weltzin, Cumberland

Bill Wilson, Superior

Sue Zahrbock, Rice Lake