The SD Synod vs. The Social Statement

I've received many questions about the vote at the South Dakota Synod Assembly regarding a resolution that was passed to Reconsider and Remove the Social Statement, “Human Sexuality:  Gift & Trust.” Rather than try to summarize everything, I'll be as thorough as I can with it and walk through everything. I'll post the resolution, my notes from the live blog, my impressions of the discussion and my thoughts on why it went the way it did.

*I know this is a bit long. As I said above, I see no other way to present this fairly or accurately. All resolutions and historic votes are from the ELCA SD Synod website.

The Resolution

I think the first thing to look at is the proposed resolution: SD Synod Assembly - Resolution 6

After the resolution was brought to the floor Bishop Zellmer informed the assembly that if it was passed with the first resolved statement,

RESOLVED, that the South Dakota Synod, in Assembly, expresses its conviction that the
decisions of the 2009 Churchwide Assembly in adopting the social statement “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” violate the Confession of Faith, of the ELCA,

it would be ruled out of order. The reason it would have been ruled out of order is that prior to the adoption of the "Human Sexuality: Gift & Trust" at the 2009 CWA, the document was already ruled to be constitutional. Bishop Zellmer explained that a synod cannot rule something unconstitutional (or in violation of the Confession of Faith) that has already been ruled constitutional.

So that the resolution would be considered at Churchwide in 2011, a motion was made to amend the resolution by removing that resolved statement. I voted not to amend the resolution. Since I was not in favor of it to begin with I preferred to leave in the resolved statement that would have kept the resolution out of order included. Ultimately though, the amendment passed, leaving only second resolved statement,

RESOLVED, that the South Dakota Synod, in Assembly, memorializes the 2011 ELCA
Churchwide Assembly to reconsider and remove the social statement “Human Sexuality: Gift
and Trust” in accordance with “Policies and Procedures of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America for Addressing Social Concerns.”

The Debate

The debate centered around the lack of Scriptural foundation for blessing homosexual unions and allowing pastors to be in homosexual relationships, even ones that are the closest legal equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

There was a speech against the resolution that reminded the South Dakota Assembly that the Social Statement is a descriptive, not prescriptive document. I spoke to the fact that I didn't believe this was an issue about not following Scripture. I pointed out that the ELCA allows lay members to remarry after divorce and allows pastors to serve in congregations who are remarried after divorce. I feel the hypocrisy was extremely evident considering the verse in the resolution is Mark 10:6-9; it's a common verse demonstrating that marriage is between man and woman when opposing homosexual unions and marriage. To me that argument falls flat when the verse specifically speaks to divorce, yet there are no resolutions to fix this or congregations threatening to leave because scripture is being ignored. I closed pointing out that I felt it was more about our willingness to extend grace to ourselves and those like us while insisting others follow the Law.

*You can see my live blog from that 6/11 here. The section about resolution 6 starts at the 4:09 pm time stamp.

The Vote

The conversation was passionate, yet civil. When the vote took place (we use electronic devices this year) it was as close as we got to the entire assembly casting a vote. The decision to use electronic voting this year was to help get an accurate tally quicker and so that people wouldn't feel pressure to vote any way but how they wanted to. It's a lot easier to cast a vote your pastor or fellow congregation delegate might disagree with when you know they won't be watching you raise your hand or shout "yay" or "nay."

The final vote on the resolution was 251 votes in favor, 243 against and 10 abstentions. A delegate who placed a vote in favor of the resolution made a motion to reconsider that was narrowly defeated.

My Impressions

This vote was much closer than the South Dakota Assembly has taken on similar issues in the past. Here are a few of the results of voting on resolutions at the 2009 South Dakota Synod Assembly:

• Resolution "Asking for Rejection Proposed Social Statement and Affirmation of Current Teaching Documents on Sexuality" Adopted 362 - 238, 12 abstentions, 48 not present
• Resolution "Asking for Rejection of Recommendations on Ministry Policy and Affirmation of Current ELCA Policy" Adopted 364 - 233, 23 abstentions, 40 not present

It is actually worth noting that the South Dakota Synod Assembly did not pass the "Resolution to Rescind Actions on Ministry Policies" or the resolution to "Rescind the Four Resolutions which Changed Ministry Policies". So why was this vote closer and why did the resolutions that would have changed prescriptive statements not pass while the resolution to reconsider a descriptive social statement pass?

The Bishop's Sermon?

One delegate credits Bishop Zellmer's sermon at opening worship for affecting his vote. The delegate of Augustana Lutheran Church in Sioux Falls said that he had been leaning towards voting in favor of the resolution. The Scripture for worship was the story Jesus healing the man born blind from John 9.

Bishop Zellmer preached that the Pharisees found the world they were comfortable in shifting underneath them by Jesus (who'd broken the Sabbath by both healing the man when it wasn't an emergency and by kneading the dirt). They had created a world they understood; it was a world filled with rules they could follow and know they were righteous. "They knew the lay of the land," he said, "but Jesus moves the dirt underneath peoples' feet. He tells us no one is self-righteous."

Bishop Zellmer reminded us that with Jesus, we don't get a stable, self-righteous world. If we want to be self-righteous the Law will ride us to death or ride us to grace. The delegate said that these words the Bishop preached made him think that maybe the Social Statement was an expression of that grace that often just pours into our lives while we're standing around blind. The connection the delegate made with the Bishop's sermon and the resolution was made by myself and many others I talked to. How could we not? After all, our Bishop had just preached that "we need people who were blind and now see to go into their communities and spread grace." I do want to say though, that I do not know what the Bishop's feelings were towards the resolution or the intentions of his sermon.

Other Thoughts

I also think that people want the conflict about the Ministry changes and Social Statement in their congregations to just go away. I heard people use that as a justification for voting both ways. Some think the conflict will go away if the changes are gone, others think that we should let our churches settle in after the changes get back to normal. However when Pastor Jeff Sorenson spoke on Saturday, he reminded us that the Social Statement is descriptive; these conflicts already exist and will continue to exist. The Social Statement seeks to bring us together despite our differences.

Despite the Social Statement existing to explain the spectrum of beliefs already held, those voting for the resolution are saying that they cannot agree to disagree. The inability to live in disagreement is why some churches have left and are seeking to leave the ELCA in our synod. The absence of those churches probably helped bring the vote a little closer.

S.D. Senator Adelstien spoke to the Assembly after dinner on Friday night. He shared about how serving for LSS proved the stereotypes he had about Christians wrong. His comments about prejudice and willingness to give others a chance before we decide we know about them may have let to Resolutions 7 & 8 not passing. While I missed Rev. Dr. Thomas Nyiwe's words at the prayer breakfast, some people said he impacted how they felt about the issue.

Conclusion

So, what does this mean? It means we have a synod that is still struggling. Those outside South Dakota should not be surprised. The SD Synod has consistently stated that many of the members and churches were not certain about changes in ELCA policy regarding sexuality. To think that Synods that had reservations about these issues weren't going to produce a few dissenting resolutions is naive.

But I see a lot of hope. Less people feel that the only way to minister and move forward is without the Social Statement and Ministry Policy changes. Thankfully those of us in support of the changes seem to have been able to show grace to those who disagree with us. I also think that congregations are coming to terms with the fact that the control of the call process has not been ripped from their hands.

I had hoped the resolution would not pass, but it did. Churchwide will take into consideration the resolutions from the synods and decide how to handle things. There's very little chance that what happened at the SD Synod Assembly will change what passed by a two-thirds vote at the '09 CWA. But the Synod will know that they were heard. Hopefully that will be enough for us to move forward as a community of faith that is being tested by disagreement and fear. Prayer, Grace, Love and Forgiveness towards each other seems to be the way to get through this and come out on the other side. Together.

All resolutions and historic voting information was found on the ELCA South Dakota Synod website. The Human Sexuality Social Statement is from the ELCA website.