<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Peter Rogness is Bishop of the Saint Paul Area Synod
of the ELCA. I found his is reflections on the current debate over
homosexuality helpful. </FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Pastor Loy</FONT>
<P><B><FONT face=Arial color=#808080 size=2></FONT></B>
<P><B><FONT face=Arial color=#808080 size=2>February 2004</FONT></B>
<P></P>
<P><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=4>The Way It Looks from
Here</FONT></B></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Partners in Ministry, </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>There is part of me that resists sending this note,
since I steadfastly maintain that we ought not cave in to the culture’s hysteria
over sexuality issues and let it take over the church as well. Certainly there
are significant issues to be pondered here, not least of which are issues of
authority of Scripture and the evolving awareness of homosexual orientation.
Important, yes, but issues that do not warrant the shrill and divisive debate
heard in many places. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>But I also know this is a time in the life of our
church where there is much thought and concern over these issues, especially as
we approach 2005.</FONT></P>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2>At last month’s Bishop’s Academy, the ELCA bishops
completed the six-session study, <B><I>Journeying Together Faithfully, Part
2.</I></B> The synod council is currently half-way through the same. I know
the pastors in two of our conferences are studying it, and a number of
congregations as well.</FONT>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2>Our six conference deans and I have decided to use
the April 29 ministerium to simply talk among ourselves as ministers in this
synod about how our pastoral work of guiding our congregations and our part of
the whole church’s life is going for us. Not to hear lectures, but to talk.
</FONT></LI></UL>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>We need to not get side-tracked on issues of
sexuality. I believe there are issues far more central to our life as a church,
issues that <B><I>ought to be</I></B> more central:</FONT></P>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2>Both our synod assembly and our fall theological
conference Sept. 26-28, at Cragun’s will center on telling the story of Jesus
and the ELCA’s recently adopted evangelism strategy. <B><I>This is core
stuff.</I></B></FONT>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2>There is movement among a wide variety of
religious leaders to put forward shared principles around the work of ending
poverty that make explicit the values held in remarkable convergence among
faith groups, principles that should guide people of faith who make decisions
in politics, economics, and community life. <B><I>This, too, is core
stuff.</I></B> Better to spend our energies on these things. </FONT></LI></UL>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Nevertheless, the sexuality issues are before us, and
we need to care for ourselves and our congregations and our church in these
times. Within our synod we have the full range of perspectives that are also
reflected throughout the ELCA. With that in mind, I share the following thoughts
that have been forming recently. </FONT></P>
<P><B><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2>Observations on the sexuality issues
facing the ELCA </FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#808080><BR></FONT></B><FONT
face=Arial size=2>In 2001, the ELCA in churchwide assembly embarked on a
four-year process designed to bring two questions, long a source of discussion
and consternation, to recommendation/action in 2005: the blessing of same-gender
relationships and the ordination of homosexual persons in committed
relationships. The 2003 Churchwide Assembly re-affirmed a commitment to this
timeline. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Much study and discussion, formal and informal, is
taking place. Much avoidance is also taking place. What is not being avoided is
a nearly universal anxiety about what this issue is about to do to our church,
<I><B>and</B></I> an almost-as-universal yearning by what seems to be a large
middle of our church to somehow avoid this outcome.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Or, put more simply, “Can we find a way not to vote
on these matters?” </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>I believe both the anxiety and the yearning are
remarkably perceptive and healthy and provide a clue for how we as a church
ought to shape our response. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Our church is an organization that exists in a
democracy, and therefore we carry on our business in a democratic/legislative
fashion. But on occasion we discover that the nature of the church and the
nature of the legislative process clash. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>This is one of those times. I hear more and more
people expressing the view that a vote on these matters will not be helpful. A
vote will not change one person’s mind or move us any closer to consensus; it
will create winners and losers. This is a time to allow our church to live with
the ongoing diversity of view and unfolding discernment that will happen in
God’s good time. In the book of Acts, Gamaliel saw the wisdom of patiently
waiting for God’s unfolding clarity. We need to do so as well. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Since we, in fact, are bound by our procedures and
will indeed have a churchwide assembly in 2005, we will be challenged to find a
place to stand (and yes, I know, we will ultimately have to vote on that place
to stand) that does not constitute a major change in our theology and policy,
but acknowledges that at this time in the life of our church our discernment
continues to unfold and leaves us at different places. Perhaps we need to find a
way not to vote that is not a de-facto victory for the status quo, but
acknowledges and allows us to be at different places and for our church life to
continue its unfolding. And we will need to find a way that recognizes that four
years was our timetable to come to clarity, but perhaps not the Spirit’s.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>I am not seeking to usurp the work that our church
has given to the task force which is now at work to bring the recommendations.
They are gifted, committed, and enormously hard-working people, who I believe
also understand something of our challenge to deal with these matters as church.
I look forward to the observations and recommendations they will share with the
church early next year. They will warrant our consideration, whatever they may
be. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>But in the meantime, I believe we would do well to
think carefully about how we can live out our yearning to not go to war with
ourselves, but to care for our life and mission together. We would do well to
ponder what it would look like for us to move into the future as church people
who trust each other, who trust congregations to seek to faithfully do God’s
mission in their own place, and who moreover trust the Lord of the Church to
guide us as we seek ways to live together. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Can we agree that living with these differing
perspectives for a time might be less harmful for the church than a divisive
vote that does nothing to bring us together? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Can we trust that the future will make more clear
whether society’s changing attitudes toward homosexuality are a good thing,
rather than force ourselves to decide on a fixed timetable? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Can we let those congregations who want to seek new
ways of ministering to gay and lesbian people do that without making a new
church policy? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Can we let otherwise qualified candidates be approved
if there are congregations wanting to call them, and synods and candidacy
committees who know them and believe they will enhance the ministry of the
church—without presuming to change in one sweeping vote the long-held views of
the church? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Can we find a way to live with our differing
perspectives, re-affirming our commitment to Christ as the head of the church
and the Scriptures as the source and norm of our church’s faith and life?
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Can we agree that it is more important for us to be a
church that <B><I>prays</I></B> about these matters than a church that
<B><I>votes</I></B> about them? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>We draw our vitality from being a spiritual community
of which Christ—not <B><I>Roberts Rules of Order—</I></B>is the head. We need to
have rules, of course. But we need to act, whenever we can, not simply as a
legislative body but as a community gathered to celebrate and discern God’s
movement among us. Sometimes that work of discernment does not conform to the
legislative process. This is one of those times. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>We are a diverse church in ways that add richness and
texture to our life together. We need to center ourselves again and again on
that which defines us, as we state again and again in the themes and statements
we adopt—“Marked with the cross of Christ forever, we are claimed, gathered, and
sent for the sake of the world” and our own synod’s threefold vision of “Telling
All the Story of Jesus, Ending Poverty, Raising Up Leaders.” </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>It is God’s claim on us in Jesus Christ, and the
continuing, life-giving presence of the Spirit, that gives us life. Never the
correctness of our decisions. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ultimately we rest ourselves back on the grace of
God, and pray “thy will be done.” Whatever the timetable. And then we care for
and trust one another.</FONT></P>
<P><B><FONT face=Arial color=#808080 size=2>Peter
Rogness</FONT></B></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>