c. 2005 Religion News Service

(UNDATED) A Lutheran task force on Thursday (Jan. 13) recommended no change to church rules that ban gay clergy and same-sex unions, saying a majority of the church does not support “wholesale change” to existing gay policy.

But the 13-member panel of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America proposed that the denomination refrain from disciplining churches and pastors who feel “conscience-bound” to disobey the rules.

The proposals suggest that _ at least for now _ the 5.2 million-member church will follow the lead of other mainline churches in choosing the status quo over major changes on the divisive issue of homosexuality.

“Rather than attempting to resolve our differences through legislative action, we have sought to place matters in the realm of pastoral care and to encourage continued engagement as we minister to one another,” the panel said in its report issued at church headquarters in Chicago.

If adopted by the Churchwide Assembly this summer, the recommendations offer a way for Lutherans to sidestep a yes-or-no decision on sexuality through a policy that essentially turns a blind eye to open defiance of the rules.

Of nearly 4,000 parishioners who took part in study groups overseen by the task force, 57 percent opposed any change and just 22 percent favored liberalizing policy. Nearly one in five had no opinion or urged delay.

Current policy allows gay clergy but expects them to “abstain” from homosexual activity. On the blessing of gay unions, bishops said in 1993 that they could “not approve such a ceremony as an official action of this church’s ministry.”

The proposals will be considered by ELCA bishops and agencies this spring, with a key hearing by the Church Council in April. A final decision is expected in August from delegates at a Churchwide Assembly meeting in Orlando, Fla.

Bishop Margaret Payne of New England, chair of the sexuality task force that was appointed in 2001, conceded that the recommendations could lead to a so-called “local option” policy that is applied and enforced differently in different areas. “That is one way to interpret it,” she said in an interview.

But, she cautioned that the proposals are far from final.

“The recommendation just comes as simply that, a recommendation, and what might appear on the floor for consideration (by delegates) might actually look very different,” she said.

Payne’s own synod includes two states _ Vermont and Massachusetts _ that allow either civil unions or civil marriage for gay couples. Payne has told her pastors to abide by current policy and not act as agents of the state in gay marriages.

The task force was formed in 2001 after delegates reaffirmed the ban on gay clergy. At the time, delegates asked for a “specific plan and timeline” for helping the church overcome polite but firm divisions.

The panel’s recommendations came in three parts:

_ Noting that the divisions on sexuality are “deep, pervasive, multi-faceted and multi-layered,” the panel urged the church to “concentrate on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements.”

_ While supporting a continuation of the 1993 policy on gay unions, the panel said “pastors and congregations can and should be trusted … to exercise the wisdom of discretion in their ministry to same-sex couples.” Such ceremonies, however, should be “in no way equivalent to marriage.”

_ In keeping the gay clergy standards intact, the church “may choose to refrain from disciplining those who in good conscience, and for the sake of outreach, ministry and the commitment to continuing dialogue,” hire gay clergy.

Payne said churches who stray from the policy must act carefully, not in a public relations stunt or in flagrant defiance. “It can’t be a lone ranger type of thing,” she said. “It has to be a strong stand of conscience.”

(OPTIONAL TRIM FOLLOWS)

Liberal groups said the proposals do not go far enough, noting they do little more than continue existing policy of “arbitrary discrimination” against gay couples and gay pastors.

“This is not a moratorium on discipline, this allows for selective enforcement,” said Emily Eastwood, spokeswoman for the Lutheran Alliance for Full Participation. “What it does, actually, is increase the vulnerability of gay and lesbians … because there’s no way to depend on where it’s safe.”

Eastwood said the six groups she represents will fight to lift the ban on gay clergy and same-sex unions at the August assembly.

Conservatives were equally disappointed. Mark Chavez, executive director of the Minnesota-based Word Alone Network, said the proposals “open the door wide open” to sanctioning homosexuality while setting up a system that allows for disobedience.

“It’s crazy to say, on the one hand, that we’re not changing the standards but on the other hand to say go ahead and disregard them and pay no attention to the boundaries,” Chavez said.

The more conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, with 1.9 million members, does not allow either gay unions or gay clergy. Its president, the Rev. Gerald Kieschnick, has endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The Rev. James Childs, professor of theology at Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, Ohio, who oversaw the three-year sexuality study, said the church was careful to monitor reaction from other churches, particularly the Episcopal Church, where an openly gay bishop has brought the church to the brink of schism. Lutherans and Episcopalians share a special “full communion” agreement.

“Obviously we were very attentive to what was happening there,” Childs said, “but I don’t believe we can say that those events alone were decisive in our proposals.”

MO/JL END ECKSTROM