A Response to the Recommendations of the ELCA’s Task Force on Sexuality

 

by Pastor Arndt F. Braaten, Ph. D.

 

Dissenting Position One:

1)  Affirm and uphold current policy and practices consistent with past understandings of Vision and Expectations, Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline, and the social statements of the Lutheran Church in American and the American Lutheran Church.

2)  Admonish individuals, communities, congregations, and synods that any discipline that may result in response to actions contrary to those policies be undertaken with all humility...

3)  Beseech individuals, communities, and synods, who for reasons of conscience will act contrary to the aforementioned policies to graciously accept and endure the discipline of the church for the sake of peace...

   To the extent that we take seriously the results of the ELCA Study on Human Sexuality, we owe Lou Hesse, a member of the Task Force, a deep sense of gratitude for Dissenting Position One.

   It took a hog farmer from Moses Lake, Washington, to stand firm in advocating what the overwhelming majority of participants clearly support according to the statistics garnered by the Task Force, (p. 15).

   In all “individual responses” to the question, “Given what you have learned from this study about the various views among members of the ELCA, what course do you think our church should follow?”:

   à     56.2% oppose blessing same-sex unions and the ordination, consecration and       

            commissioning of gay and lesbians (GLBT) persons living in a sexual relationship.

   à     23.2% favor the above, a ratio of about 2.5 to 1 against “blessing” and “rostering,”

            (p. 28).

   The “group responses” to the same question, however, appears to be 62.6% opposing “blessing and rostering”, and 16% in favor, a ratio of 4 to 1, (p. 31).  It is significant to note that this response to the ELCA task force's Study on Human Sexuality is consistent with prior reactions to ELCA efforts on behalf of same-sex unions and the ordination of GLBT persons living in a sexual relationship:

   In 1988 (the first year of our existence as the ELCA) the Conference of Bishops was confronted with a resolution to sanction the ordination of Gay and Lesbian (GLBT) persons living in a sexual relationship, which was contrary to the constitution they had so recently vowed to uphold.  Even residing Bishop Herbert Chilstrom and Bishop Lowell Erdahl joined the other bishops in defeating the resolution because:  “We believed that the ordination of homosexuals who would not commit themselves to celibacy would divide our young and fragile church.  But we are now (2001) convinced that there has been a shift in attitudes in the church over these past years,”  (Sexual Fulfillment, Chilstrom and Erdahl, p. 111).  Apparently they have been out of touch with a resounding majority of their fellow ELCA members.

   The overwhelming negative response to the recommendations of the first ELCA Task Force on Human Sexuality in 1993, primarily because of its stand on homosexuality, resulted in the Church Council, preventing the report from ever coming before the 1995 Churchwide Assembly as originally intended, (The Church and Homosexuality, Merton Strommen, p. 66).

   Nevertheless, a resolution for a moratorium on denying ordination to gay and lesbian (GLBT) persons living in a sexual relationship came before the 1999 Churchwide Assembly.  “It failed by a wide margin - as it has with many other churches,” according to Bishops Herbert Chilstrom and Lowell Erdahl in their book, “Sexual Fulfillment,” (p.112).

   The Task Force claims to have, “paid careful attention to the results of the study,” and yet chose to ignore the statistical account (p. 10); so as to justify recommendation three that would eventually, defacto, result in the ELCA sanctioning same-sex unions and the ordination consecration and commissioning of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons living in a sexual relationship, (p. 10).

   They justify their recommendation alleging no “new policy or changes to existing policy” (pp. 10 & 11), and claiming that calling GLBT persons living in a sexual relationship is in accordance with our present policy,  (b, p. 8).

   And how can one claim to have “paid careful attention to the results of the study” and still insist on advocating “local option”, when only 3.5% of the respondents suggested it, as well as promoting the continuation of a sixteen year long study that only 4.4% of  the respondents suggested? (p. 27).

Back to top

We should also support “Position One”:

1)  For upholding an understanding of conscience that is “captive to the Word of God” and consequently in harmony with Martin Luther's application thereof in defense of Biblical truth.  This is in contrast to a personal subjective conscience vulnerable to social pressures and political correctness as well as individual agendas and ideologies, as apparently proffered in the Report and recommendations from the Task Force (p. 6c) and Recommendation 3, (p. 7).

2)  For remaining faithful to the official position of the ELCA, in harmony with the position held by the Church Catholic over the past 2,000 years as well as an estimated 95% of the Church of Christ on earth today.

3)  For respecting the 1993 Statement of the Conference of Bishops that obligates us to uphold their major emphasis for pastoral guidance, “There is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship,”  (See footnote on P. 6 of the Task Force Report).

   As conscientious pastors to fellow pastors, the ELCA bishops recognized their responsibility to help pastors and congregations in ministry to gay and lesbian (GLBT) persons, within the above mentioned guidelines.

4)  For responding, with integrity, to the task force's decision not to change the ELCA policy concerning same-sex unions and the ordination of gay and lesbian (GLBT) persons in a partnered relationship, by advocating appropriate disciplinary action with humility and gracious compassion for individuals, congregations, and synods, who for reasons of conscience will act contrary to the current ELCA “policy and practices consistent with past understandings of Vision and Expectations, Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline, and the social statements of the Lutheran Church in American and the American Lutheran Church,” (p. 16, #2 & 3).

The ELCA Task Force Report and Recommendations, including Dissenting Positions One and Two, gives us two options:

1)  We could vote on the two dissenting positions which would result in an up or down vote that would bring closure to a sixteen year debate on whether the ELCA should sanction same-sex unions and the ordination of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons living in a sexual relationship.

   We would then be free to commit our full time, means and efforts to that which is a church's unique realm of responsibility.

2)  Or we could vote for the Task Force recommendations and become an integral part of the ELCA's persistent efforts to sanction same-sex unions and the ordination of GLBT persons living in a sexual relationship, by giving legitimacy to the current practice of “conscientious disobedience,” euphemized as “pastoral discretion.”

   The end result is assured:  after years, possibly decades, of disunity and chaos, the ELCA would eventually become one of the mainline churches that sanctions same-sex unions and the ordination of GLBT persons living in a sexual relationship.  Two of the mainline churches, The Episcopal Church USA and the United Church of Christ, with whom we have full communion and ministerial fellowship, can testify as to how successful we will then be in outreach.

 

 

The Reverend Dr. Arndt Folkvard Braaten has served

as a missionary in Madagascar;

as an associate professor at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa;

and as president of Waldorf College, in Forest City, Iowa.

Currently, he is a member of Decorah Lutheran and

serves as an interim pastor at Waterloo Ridge in rural Decorah.