SUMMARY OF THE CONGREGATIONAL DISCUSSI0N AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION ON HUMAN SEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH

St. Johns Lutheran Church, Madison, Wisconsin
Summary of the Congregational Discussion of Human Sexuality and the Church and the Congregational Resolution Regarding the Formation and Affirmation of Household Covenants.

Version 5: June 10, 2004

Background
During 2003 and 2004 in adult forums, congregational council meetings and in various small group discussions, the congregation has considered both parts one and two of the ELCA Study on Human Sexuality.
Through the process, the congregation has focused on this issue of human sexuality as a matter of congregational and pastoral care. Given the congregation's location in an urban and university setting and it's history of emphasis on being a welcoming congregation to all those in need, the discussion focused on how we might be responsive to requests for care and ceremonies for those involved in non-traditional relationships and households, while being faithful to our scriptural heritage.
Consequently, the discussion focused on our scriptural tradition and the use of scripture, our welcoming nature, and the practical details of openness. We did not attempt to consider the issue of ordination of gay/lesbian clergy. Nor did we attempt to address the issues of gay/lesbian Christianity in a general way. We felt some of these things would be best served by the continued broader discussion in the larger church, but we also felt that the congregation is the where decisions are best made regarding baptisms, confirmations, weddings, funerals, membership of individuals, and that the congregation is the context in which the celebration of life's events are best recognized.

The Bible and This Issue
In congregational discussion, groups considered carefully the scripture which sometimes calls us to welcome others while at the same time in some passages prohibits homosexual relationships. Through the discussion, we noted that all of scripture is important for us because it is instructive and provides us with wisdom and insight. However, we do not use all of scripture to provide order and structure for our lives.
Examples of this include the prohibition against borrowing or lending in Deuteronomy. Although we do lend and borrow in our economy and do not consider it a sin, we are reminded by the passage of the dangers and difficulties than can be associated with debt. In Matthew, where Jesus indicates that if your hand causes you to sin, you should cut it off, we do not literally advocate this; but we do still use the passage to remind us of the grave nature of the sin around us and the importance of challenging sin in our lives. Although the mortgage of one's home is prohibited in Deuteronomy, we do not consider a mortgage to be a sin. We do recognize, however, that our homes are precious and we should not put them at risk. We are opposed to slavery, but the many passages in the Bible that accept slavery remind us of the importance of treating laborers justly and to work for good racial relationships and to treat our enemies with respect even if they are vanquished.
So it may be with the passages of the Bible referring to human sexuality. Although we may refrain from condemning homosexuality as a sin, we find wisdom in these passages reminding us that in matters of human sexuality we are to be pure, honorable, upright, faithful, respectful and honest. So we might receive wisdom and insight from these passages on sexuality while not necessarily using them to order our lives as Christians together.
In our discussion, this way of interpreting the Bible raised the question: Where do we draw the line?" Is there some part of the Bible that is not subject to such interpretation? Can we decide to do and believe whatever we want?

In discussion we decided that we did have a line that determines our interpretation; but more importantly, we had a core or center in the Bible that determined our perspective on interpretation of biblical passages. The center or core is Jesus Christ and Christ alone. The birth, life, teaching and healing, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the core that determines our faith and is a principle that remains absolute and transcultural. The principle is used then to shape the use we make of scripture in its variety and complexity.
As Lutherans we also noted that we also do draw a rather unique line as we interpret the Bible. The line we use is grace. If something enhances, clarifies, or enriches the grace of God as revealed in Jesus Christ, then we are to lift that up. If something clouds or hinders this grace, then we are reluctant to engage in it or promote it whether it is found in the scriptures or in the life of our congregation or in our culture.
As Lutherans we noted the history of using this core and line in interpreting scripture. For example, we noted Martin Luther's concerns for the inclusion of the books of James and Revelation in the scriptures because they reflect grace less than other parts of scripture.
We also noted that this use of grace to determine our practice is found in Article 15 of the Augsburg Confession and that examples of its application are found in the Confession in Articles 26 and 28 regarding the distinction of foods and the powers of bishops. In these articles, we are to use the principle of grace as a means to determine what we should practice in our religious and personal lives. If a church activity promotes grace, then it should be celebrated. If an activity does not offer a sense of grace, then we should not do it.
We also noted our congregation's traditional interpretation of scripture allowing for open questions in the 19th century, recognizing that in many matters of faith, there may be disagreement between members of the congregation that do not compromise our fellowship. (St. Johns was established in 1856 as one of the original congregations of the old Iowa Synod which later became part of the ALC and then the ELCA. As such, it participated in the 19th and 20th century scriptural controversies that established our understanding that there is a core and a line in scripture, but there are also many open questions about which we may not demand uniformity.)
So there is a core and a line to be used as we read the Bible, understanding that all of scripture gives us wisdom and insight, even though we do not use all of scripture to structure our lives. We further noted that a Christian community may be well served to use the biblical passages regarding sexuality in their entirety to offer us wisdom about how we live in relationships even though the specific details of particular passages are not used to order our lives.

Caution with Freedom
However, Paul's letter to the Corinthians, in the congregation's difficult decision regarding food offered to idols, makes it clear that a wise congregation, out of respect for the feelings of its members, would not rush to new found freedoms. And such wisdom may bear itself out in this particular situation. We found quite a few problems with gay marriage as a practice for our congregation.
First, when we actually reviewed the marriage services, both the traditional rites and the new rites in the renewing worship resources, we felt that the heterosexual foundations, subtle assumptions, wording, lessons to be read, and ritual actions made it difficult to simply take out the heterosexual material and replace it with homosexual references. It appears that this may require a great deal of skill beyond the scope of our pastors' strengths which lie in areas other than liturgical text development. It may be the case that the service and its surrounding traditions are so heterosexual, that it would be more productive for us to use a different liturgical structure or format - something more along the lines of a covenant formation and affirmation approach as found in other services in our tradition.
Second, in Wisconsin, the marriages the congregation performs are legal marriages, and we want it to be that way for good reasons. This is one area where the church and state cooperate with each other and for the sake of that partnership, it may be wise to indicate that our marriages remain legal.
Third, despite the fact that St. Johns is a welcoming community and is highly dedicated to serving the needs of the poor in one of the more dynamic and also challenging areas of the city, it still values and cherishes its tradition and past. Indeed, many of our younger families are also attracted to our sense of heritage as well as our commitment to service to the neighborhood in partnership with others. We wanted to honor this tradition and to move slowly in this area.

The Formation and Affirmation of Household Covenants
That being said, the group then explored in an initially positive way the possibilities for the formation and affirmation of household covenants. We knew this to be awkward phrasing, but realized that this phrase came closer to what we were looking for and willing to do rather than other phrases that are used when the issue is discussed.
We also noted that the awkward phrase does not carry with it meanings that are not intended. We noted, for example, that the phrase "union blessing" may not be good for us. Blessings more often appear in the Roman Catholic tradition. Affirmation of a Covenant is more in keeping with the Lutheran liturgical heritage. We were also not sure what the word "union" referred to, and wanted to focus on the importance of people making covenants or commitments to each other in their lives.
The formation and affirmation of household covenants would involve families and or couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, who desire to covenant with one another to offer stability to their life together.
Examples we discussed and with which we have had experience included
-----People who in life's later years have developed friendships and special relationships. For financial, health and family reasons they do not wish to marry, but their companionship is something they desire to honor, respect, and more publically acknowledge.
-----Couples who may be contemplating marriage in the future, but are looking for an alternative to marriage or an engagement period, and at the same time wish to share property and or raise children.
-----Gay or lesbian couples who wish for the stability that comes with committed relationships and who construct a household, share property, and raise children.
Such covenants would use the tradition of covenant formation and affirmation found in scripture, perhaps most clearly in Joshua 24, and echoed in the services of affirmation found in the Lutheran Book of Worship and also in the rites for life passages in the Renewing Worship resources.
Such covenant affirmations would involve recalling the history of the relationship, a call to commitment, a vow or a renewal of a vow, the affirmation of the community gathered, a prayer asking the Holy Spirit to assist us in living up to the responsibilities made this day, the comfort and challenge of scripture, and a concrete and visible sign that reminds everyone that the covenant has been made.
In the formation of these covenants, care would be taken so that the vows express not only the values of the participants but also the values for which the church and congregation stand: loyalty and faithfulness, tenderness and affection, honesty and respect, the willingness to help one another in difficult times, the sharing of wealth and poverty, justice and fairness, the contribution of the household to the good of the community, and special care for children and elderly present in the household.
Those seeking such covenants would engage one of the pastors of the congregation to assist them in shaping their covenant and its recognition. In almost every case, these covenants would be different from one another, but they would contain many or all of the elements above.
As the covenants are constructed, companions would be asked to explore the legal implications of what they are doing with their attorneys. Just as godparents in a baptism are not legal guardians in the baptismal covenant, so also the presence of this covenant would not be construed as having legal force on its own.

The participants in these covenants would be affiliated with our congregation in some direct way. The pastors of the congregation would work with households in their development. And the covenants would be recorded in the records of the congregation.

Many also expressed the desire for the congregation to continue to work on the issues surrounding the human sexuality statements of the ELCA, emphasizing the need for us to consider not only our own congregation's work in the area of congregational care of members but also to continue reflection on our congregation's desire to be a welcoming community and what form that might take in our public statements. A resolution calling the congregation to further consideration of these issues was adopted by the Congregational Council on March 17, 2004.

Summary
After reflection on our situation and the needs of people in our location, the ELCA study, the Biblical material, the need to emphasize our welcoming nature and also to proceed with caution, the congregational council decided to further consider household covenants during its coming meetings.

A preliminary discussion of this summary was set for March 21 in adult forum. The Council also called a congregational meeting at 10:30am on Sunday, June 6 to consider the following resolution:

Resolution on the Formation and Affirmation of Household Covenants
Be it resolved that
The Congregation of St John's Lutheran Church, Madison, Wisconsin affirm the formation and affirmation of household covenants with these understandings:
The formation and affirmation of household covenants would involve couples, either heterosexual or homosexual, or families, who desire to covenant with one another to offer stability to their life together. Examples of such covenants would include:
· Older people who in life's later years have developed friendships and special relationships. For financial, health and family reasons they do not wish to marry, but their companionship is something they desire to honor, respect, and more publicly acknowledge.
· Young couples who may be contemplating marriage in the future, but are looking for an alternative to marriage or an engagement period, and at the same time wish to share property and or raise children.
· Gay or lesbian couples who wish for the stability that comes with committed relationships, desire to honor, respect, and more publicly acknowledge their companionship, and who may wish to form a household, share property, and raise children.
Such covenants would use the tradition of covenant formation and affirmation found in scripture, perhaps most clearly in Joshua 24, and echoed in the services of affirmation found in the Lutheran Book of Worship and also in the rites for life passages in the Renewing Worship resources.
Such covenant affirmations would involve recalling the history of the relationship, a call to commitment, a vow or a renewal of a vow, the affirmation of the community gathered, a prayer asking the Holy Spirit to assist us in living up to the responsibilities made this day, the comfort and challenge of scripture, and a concrete and visible sign that reminds everyone that the covenant has been made.
In the formation of these covenants, care would be taken so that the vows express not only the values of the participants but also the values for which the church and congregation stand: loyalty and faithfulness, tenderness and affection, honesty and respect, the willingness to help one another in difficult times, the sharing of wealth and poverty, justice and fairness, the contribution of the household to the good of the community, and special care for any children present in the household.
Those seeking such covenants would engage one of the pastors of the congregation to assist them in shaping their covenant and its recognition. In almost every case, these covenants would be different from one another, but they would contain many or all of the elements above.
As the covenants are constructed, companions would be asked to explore the legal implications of what they are doing with their attorneys. Just as godparents in a baptism are not legal guardians in the baptismal covenant, so also the presence of this covenant would not be construed as having legal force on its own.

The participants in these covenants would be affiliated with our congregation in some direct way as expected of participants in other covenants and affirmations such as baptism, confirmation, or marriage. The pastors of the congregation would work with households in their development. Household covenants would be recorded in a distinct area in the records of the congregation.

Report of the Special Meeting
The special meeting was publicized for almost two months, with the sexuality study materials, our background conversation material and the resolution available for distribution. Approximately 200 copies of our material were distributed. Our Bishop, George Carlson, was informed of the congregation's special meeting, and he wished the congregation well in its deliberation. He asked us to share our materials, resolution, and outcomes with the ELCA churchwide expression.
The special meeting of the congregation opened with prayer. It was noted that a quorum was in attendance. The resolution was presented and seconded for consideration. Discussion followed with people speaking in for and against the resolution. There were no amendments to the resolution.
A written ballot was taken so that each member would be free to vote his or her conscience on the matter. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 39 to 13.
Pastor Ken was asked to share the summary of our discussion and the adopted resolution with the ELCA churchwide study on human sexuality and with Bishop George Carlson.

I John 4:16-18: God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness, because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.