The promise read:
...that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America make provision in its policies to recognize the conviction of members who believe who believe that this church should not call or roster people in a publically accountable, lifelong monogamous, same-gender relationship.
Even on its face, there was a great deal of ambiguity as to what "making provision" meant in the concrete. Read narrowly, it only promised that no congregation could be compelled to call as Pastor an individual in a publically accountable, lifelong monogamous, same-gender relationship. Given the polity of the ELCA, no congregation could be forced to call any particular individual in the first place--conservative, liberal, black, white, gay or straight. The decision to tender a call always has rested solely with the congregation--for better or worse, depending on one's point of view. The synod has no power rotate or place any Pastor in a parish as happens in other denominations such as the Methodist or Catholic Churches.
The wider view of the mandate for tolerance and acceptance was that those who disagreed and stood as opposed to the statement on sexuality would be included in the various councils, boards, and committees within the church. Although no one thought that there would be any kind of quota system for the inclusion of dissident representatives, in fact there also wasn't an explicit promise that any dissident layman or clergy would ever find a place in any of these functions.
With so much not nailed down, it is perhaps not surprising that the promised "provision" for dissidents might be less than forthcoming or exacting.
In the November issue of Lutheran Core Connection (admittedly not an unbiased source), one Pastor W. Stevens Shipman--the Lutheran Core Director--claims that the many functions within the ELCA have not been acting on the promise of tolerance. Instead, they have been hostile to those who do not subscribe to the Churches' sexuality statement. He charges that there has been significant "bullying" of prospective students by synodical candidate committees, seminarians seeking admission to the clergy roster, in call processes, and in synod elections. He adds that some rather disagreeable actions and words have been directed toward pastors and congregations considering withdrawing from the ELCA.
Being a mere layman, I am ill suited to determine to what extent--if any--of these claims are true. My own parent's congregation experienced a great deal of anguish at the hands of their bishop and his offices as it moved to withdraw from the ELCA. Having read some of the communications in the back and forth between their congregation and the bishop, "anguish" would be an understatement. But that is only one congregation and in some ways they brought some of it on themselves. My own Pastor sits on our synod's candidate committee and his witness is that there has been no bullying of any prospective candidate in the least. I am inclined to take his word for it (he is a dissident himself); but I also bear in mind that at the time he had minimized (that is, put the best construction on) the implications of the 2009 Churchwide Assembly actions with its statement on sexuality. Still, there has been nary a word from any source that any candidate has felt he/she had been or was being strong armed.
What to make of all this?
The strange assertion from the ELCA hierarchy made during the debates was that the issue should not be "church dividing". In effect, by their lights, the traditionalists should not care that much over such a minor issue. "You can disagree and still be a part of the church." That didn't mean others were to walk under the same umbrella. Of course, the hierarchy and the reformers could care a great deal and press the issue toward its completion. The traditionalists on their part were to say admitting practicing homosexuals into the ministry was not a crucial question.
To be fair, all mainline churches have experienced significant membership drift; so the ELCA's loss cannot be attributed to the 2009 decisions by themselves. But the ELCA's loss was sharply precipitous since the countrywide assembly. The leadership was deeply strung by the membership reduction and the loss of income.
Some hypothesize that having failed to maintain unity, taken the hit, the ELCA leadership now feels free to revert to its true character and come out unambiguously as a soldier in the GLBT cause. Indeed, if various statement made by the past and present presiding bishops, and the ELCA's The Lutheran publication are any indication, any restraint out of respect for the remaining traditionalist has long been abandoned.
From one point of view, having coming out solidly in favor of practicing gay pastors (albeit with the provision they must be in partnered lifelong monogamous relationships) and having paid the price, exactly how much tolerance is owed to the dissidents? Traditionalists even at this date remain a thorn in the Church's side.
Yet, the promise of accommodation with the orthodox and the policy of "welcoming" toward gays stand together. How to resolve the matter? The same way Biblical particulars are dismissed in favor accommodation with more enlightened theology.
As nearly everyone agrees that behind the recent "gay battles" two different approaches to how Scripture is read and used. The more "liberal" reading is to take the entire Bible and locate overarching themes. In this method, a reading is taken up to a set of abstractions through which issues are resolved--generalizations which may overrule particular, closer readings. Thus two principles in this case are derived.
The first is to cite the principal of inclusion and acceptance of diversity of all God's children into the arms of the Church. By this, Jesus' earthly ministry demonstrates how He excluded no one from His kingdom--saints and sinners alike--as well as Jews and Gentiles--condemning no one. By this light, sinners of all sorts are equal in the eyes of God with all sins being at heart the same--one being no less destructive than others . Thus, it would be sinful and hypocritical to exclude one group of sinners from the ministry of the Church while admitting others--to do so displays a lack of love--a violation of Christ's command to all His disciples to love one another. An all encompassing love which obliterates the heavy burden of the Law. Exclusion, therefore, is revealed to be animated by hate while diversity is seen as a positive good.
The second principle, in a sense, renders the first to be only a form of an argument rather than a concrete framework to the question of admitting partnered same-sex individuals to the ministry. Indeed, the reforming factions regard homosexuality as a positive good and not sinful in and of itself. The reasoning being that God created homosexuals as they are. And, as God pronounced all His creation good, therefore homosexuality (same sex attraction)--as it was fashioned into the very fabric of creation-- is good. Thus. it is slanders God by pronouncing as bad what He made a part of His good creation.
These two principles together become a standard which trumps the orthodox standard of faithfulness to the Biblical admonitions against same-sex carnal behavior. (A subset of this is a rejection of the notion that the Bible actually says anything which forbids members of the same sex from sensual docking procedures. Thus the orthodox are raising a standard which is a false, unbiblical one.)
Thus, the more orthodox are passed over for the ELCA's councils and committees on the grounds that they cannot stand behind the Church's public teaching and are insufficiently committed to the major value the Church has chosen for itself: namely inclusiveness. This operative is not spoken publically--although it probably is acknowledged in private. Nonetheless, the effect is that the orthodox are not included in the name of inclusiveness. Liberal leaders and lay members largely can't see how it can be otherwise.
It is hard for the orthodox not to think the ELCA has sold itself to the spirit of the age. Indeed, given the history on how ELCA came to champion the cause of gay pastors in its ministry, the overall conviction that the stigma against gays should be removed came first--the theological justification was then reverse engineered. Liberals will vehemently deny any such thing took place; but it is clear the mainline Churches had been casting around for plausible theological justification for years.
There is little hope the ELCA will backtrack and reinstate the traditional strictures on homosexuality. Perhaps the leadership is right and in time all the laity will come around. As with the vexing imposition of quotas, the leadership will tell itself that the laity will agree that it was the right thing to do. What is clear is that the orthodox position will no longer be given voice in ELCA teachings nor its publications.
The question the orthodox face is "what do we do next?". The apprehension the orthodox have is that, if the Church can see its way to do this, what will it see its way to do next?
