Living Theology in the Metropolitan
Volume 10, Number 1
Summer 2005
The Call to Fidelity
Is Theological Discussion Possible in the Metropolitan
Let me answer the question in
the title in the affirmative. We have
had theological discussions in the Metropolitan Chicago Synod. One major discussion concerned the ecumenical
proposals before the ELCA in 1997. I
remember several hundred people making it through a Thursday night rainstorm to
But not, apparently, when it
comes to the gay agenda. For one thing,
this agenda has been framed as a justice issue rather than a theological
issue. So it has been commandeered by
the synod’s Justice Team. Yet instead of
working to get this synod to lobby for the legal recognition of same-sex unions
in the State of
Other synods in the ELCA have
allowed voting members to express themselves on the three recommendations of
the ELCA Task Force on Human Sexuality being sent to the Churchwide
Assembly by the Churchwide Council. They have taken votes not only on the three
recommendations but also on the two opposing positions—i.e. that homosexual
unions and clergy living in committed homosexual relationships should not be
tolerated in the ELCA and that homosexual unions should be blessed and no
obstacle should be placed on candidates for ordination who are living in such
relationships if all other standards in Vision and Expectations are
being met. Discussion preceding the
votes allowed different views to be expressed on very complex issues. Our synod is apparently so far beyond these
recommendations that we voted to ask the ELCA to adopt as policy “that for the
sake of outreach, ministry, mission and prayerful support, a congregation may
choose to give its pastor or pastors discretion to perform services of blessing
of committed same-gender relationships” and to ask the Divisions for Ministry
and Congregational Life and the Conference of Bishops to develop a rite of
blessing for same-gender couples; and also to remove barriers to the ordination
of candidates living in such relationships.
The fact that these
resolutions passed with commanding majorities does not mean that there are no
arguments to be made in opposition. But
the forum for such discussion was not provided.
The presenters of these resolutions organized teach-ins on their
resolutions which left a few minutes for people in the audience to ask
questions or make brief statements. But
forty minutes of this kind of a forum does not compare with two to three hours
of theological discussion provided on the ecumenical issues in 1996 and 1999. Even though 30 minutes and 15 minutes were
allotted respectively for discussion of these resolutions on the floor of the
assembly, this was hardly the place to raise important theological questions.
But questions can be
raised. For example, as an argument in
favor of the resolution asking the ELCA to develop rites and resources for
blessing same-sex unions, the sponsors noted in their whereases
that the Church has blessed all kinds of things (and provided a long
list). To be sure, we don’t vote on whereases. But those
whereases contain the rationales for the
resolutions. So in a genuine discussion
it would have been germane to note that the Church has sometimes blessed things
that it ought not to have blessed (e.g. battleships); that the Reformation was
very concerned about the blessing of inanimate things (a source of
superstition) and generally abolished such items that we now take for granted
as palms on Palm Sunday and ashes on Ash Wednesday; and that when we do bless
things it is really a petition for a salutary use. My family of origin prayed every day “God
bless this food to our use and ourselves to your
service.” In the same way we might bless
water to remind us of our baptism, houses to serve as homes in which Christian
virtues are practiced, Christmas creches to remind us
of Immanuel—God with us, quilts to keep refugees warm,
etc.
But when human beings are
blessed it is specifically to proclaim the promise of God about the status upon
which they are entering. This is usually
a status instituted by God for humanity generally (e.g. marriage, family life)
or instituted by Christ for the church specifically (e.g. baptism,
ordination). How do same-sex unions meet
the qualification for this kind of a blessing?
And if same-sex unions are not blessings in this sense, what kind of
blessings are they? If they are
blessings in this sense, are we to construe such unions as marriage in the
Biblical sense? Is marriage to be
restricted, as in Genesis, to male and female—opposite sexes—becoming one flesh
and, according to God’s will, being fruitful and multiplying? Finally, a pastoral question: is blessing
same-sex unions the only way to provide pastoral care for gay people in our
congregations? Are there other practices
that provide at least an affirmation of a relationship by the community of
faith even though a divine endorsement seems ambiguous at best?
Have we reached a point in
which we simply take a vote on matters of faith and practice and move on? What becomes of the sense of the first synod
in Acts 15 that their decision “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us?” That kind of decision requires
consensus. Consensus is achieved not by
silencing the opposition but by talking until enough agreement is reached that
those who may still have reservations can nevertheless live with the
decision. If that consensus is not
everything that everyone wants, it is at least enough to keep people together
on broad areas of agreement. But to live
with significant disagreement on an issue of this importance is not really possible
in the long run. If a church which purports to base its life on biblical and
confessional authority must agree to disagree on what the Bible and the
Confessions teach, the issue on which it disagrees will ultimately become
church-dividing.
Is theological discussion
possible in the Metropolitan Chicago Synod?
It had better be possible, on this issue especially. That’s the way I see it.