|
A REVIEW OF GLEN HERTZOG’S ARTICLE “REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF
‘RESOLUTION 6'”
Mr Hertzog states that on June 17th and 18th the Provincial Synod of
the Northern Province of the Moravian Church adopted the Second
Partial Report of the Committee on Church and Society regarding
recognition of Homosexual Members of the Moravian Church Northern
Province. He states that a great deal of discussion within and
beyond the Northern Province arose from the resolution; RESOLVED:
(6) Homosexual individuals shall be supported and affirmed by being
allowed to celebrate their lives as individuals and/or couples
completely within the bounds of the church and under the grace which
our Creator imparts to all persons.
He states that this resolution was “the latest in a series of synod
attempts to legislatively create an environment wherein church
members and friends who identify themselves as same-sex oriented”
would feel less isolated. He states that apparently it will be the
last attempt to do so for a while, as the Unity Synod, meeting in
August of that year, declared a moratorium on additional
pertinent legislation pending further study. The reason given for
the moratorium by the Unity Synod according to Mr Hertzog was the
declaration by Unity Synod that the question of homosexuals in the
church “does not rise to the doctrinal equivalent of the New
Testament confession, ‘Jesus is Lord’”.
He states that he offers his personal comments regarding this
situation “with a clear understanding of the need (and various Synod
directives) for continuing dialogue”. He then wrote his personal
comments in the form of an article included in The Hinge.
He does acknowledge that:
"his
contribution of this article to The Hinge is a matter
of some concern for the Provincial Elders’ Conference, North, where
we have discussed the advisability of reviving some of the strong
emotional reactions Resolution 6 generated."
He further
states that he is grateful for the concern, recognizing that the
issue is divisive, and hopes the passage of time will enable those
involved in the debate to bring their anger under control and permit
understanding and appreciation of the pain that fuels the
anger.
He talks about several Lebenslauf events that stand out in his
memory. He states he will share some of them because understanding
of his perspective might be possible. One event was his completion
of ten years in the US Navy Submarine Service. Upon his return to
Schoeneck Moravian congregation he was elected to serve as an elder.
Some time later items were stolen from the sanctuary. A decision
regarding locking the doors to the church when not actively in use.
He states that due to the “open door” policy of tradition he had
several sleepless nights and vivid dreams about the sacrifices made
by Moravians in the past. He states that the congregation was deeply
concerned about changing the open door policy of the church which
had been tradition obtained through the sacrifices of Moravians in
the past. He informs us that the debate was difficult and emotional,
however practicality dictated that the doors should be locked and
only opened for authorized access.
He then leads from the very real and practical situation of deciding
whether doors should be locked or open into the figurative condition
of locked doors. His transition can best be relayed through quoting
him directly. “While some Moravians may see the primary function of
the provincial elders as being guardians of church doctrine and
policy, we are more inclined to see ourselves as facilitators and
implementers of church vision. If I am, of necessity, placed in the
role of doorkeeper, I will look for reasons to keep the door open
before I accept a reason to close it. I am certain that to do
otherwise would limit my effectiveness as a leader and may obscure
some opportunities for evangelism. I cannot think of an adequate
reason for trying to deny any of God’s children the blessings I
enjoy. And I define an adequate reason as one that might suffice on
my day of judgement.” (Note: this reviewer deems this paragraph as
essential to Mr Hertzog’s logic regarding his views and statements
to come.)
He goes on to describe an inter-faith opportunity wherein a Jewish
rabbi and Muslim layman spoke about their faiths. During the open
dialogue for questions, he relays, two men rose in turn to belabor
the rabbi and Muslim. He relays that the two men engaged in abusive
tirades, harshly delivered, which degenerated into name calling.
Upon delivering their carefully scripted tirades the two men
departed before the event concluded. What he is describing appears
to be a deliberate ambush of two men of other faiths invited by the
congregation to share their beliefs by two men of narrow view. The
point for relaying this disheartening occurrence, he states, is that
“despite vigorous ‘righteous’ condemnation of their ‘erroneous
ways’, neither the Muslim, nor the Jew was converted to
Christianity.” He states his conviction that conversion to
Christianity should be by invitation was reinforced, and he renewed
his determination to make his attempts at evangelism be invitations
“to walk beside me and share the blessings I enjoy”.
Mr. Hertzog breaks resolution 6 down into two components: that which
addresses homosexuals and states they may celebrate their lives as
singles and couples within the full bounds of the Morvian Church,
and that component which directs congregants allow homosexuals to
celebrate their lives as singles and couples within the bounds of
the church.
He states:
"I have found it
helpful to my understanding of “Resolution 6” to see it as
containing two distinct statements, one addressed to the
homosexual individual, and another to everyone else. Paraphrasing
Resolution 6, to the homosexual person it says, “You shall be
supported and affirmed by being allowed to celebrate your life as
an individual and/or as part of a couple within the bounds of the
church and under the grace which our Creator imparts to all
persons.” To everyone else it says, “You shall support and affirm
a homosexual individual by allowing him/her to celebrate his/her
life as an individual and/or as part of a couple within the bounds
of the church and under the grace which our Creator imparts to
all.”
A great deal of discussion and controversy has taken place around
the use of the word “celebrate” in the resolution. Some people
have objected to the erroneous perception that they have been
directed to celebrate a form of sexual expression which they
cannot support. That particular controversy is unfortunate and
unnecessary, in that it arises from misreading the resolution.
Referring to my two-statement understanding above, I maintain that
the homosexual individual is told, “You shall be... allowed to
celebrate your life...“ To everyone else it says, “You shall allow
him/her to celebrate…” "In this resolution no person
is directed to celebrate the life of another, and the Northern
Province does not declare that it celebrates anything.
He states that the resolution does not
direct any person to celebrate the life of another. He also states
the resolution does not declare that the Northern Province
“celebrates anything”. He states that the Northern Province merely
recognized and reinforced the basic human right of a homosexual
child of God to celebrate his, or her, own life. This freedom, he
states, is taken for granted by everyone else and is frequently
denied the homosexual member of Moravian churches.
He states that his attempt to clarify the word “celebrate” in
Resolution 6 is done with a sense of hopelessness. He
maintains that a quote from the January/February 2004 edition of The
Moravian magazine that the Northern Synod was “celebrating the
homosexual lifestyle” is a misinterpretation of the Resolution. He
states the following:
"I am disappointed that
a well meaning person has chosen to base an argument on
misinformation, possibly from a third party’s emotional
misinterpretation, rather than referring to, and quoting from the
original document. "
“It appears that
misstating and/or misunderstanding the intended message of
Resolution 6 may result from emotional stimulus as much as from
the absence of accurate information.”
He further is disappointed that
the editorial staff chose to perpetuate error and “disinformation”
by publishing the “poorly researched letter”.
Mr. Hertzog states his belief that the
division, resistance and heated debate during 2002 synod N over this
resolution comes from a misinterpretation of the documents use of the
term "celebrate".
"A great deal of
discussion and controversy has taken place around the use of the
word “celebrate” in the resolution. Some people have objected to
the erroneous perception that they have been directed to celebrate
a form of sexual expression which they cannot support. That
particular controversy is unfortunate and unnecessary, in that it
arises from misreading the resolution. Referring to my
two-statement understanding above, I maintain that the homosexual
individual is told, “You shall be... allowed to celebrate your
life...“ To everyone else it says, “You shall allow him/her to
celebrate…”
The erroneous
perception that Mr. Hertzog speaks of was apparently shared by
individuals on both sides of the controversy.
See Rev. Aden Ward's
remarks.
To arrive at Hertzog's
understanding of the use of the term "celebrate" in R-6 he suggests
two sources of information:
"I encourage you,
if you have not already done so, to read the booklet Resolution 6,
An Interpretation of Moravian Church Northern Province and Unity
Synod Actions Regarding Homosexuality, prepared by the Provincial
Elders’ Conference, Northern Province, and dated January 4, 2003."
(Produced months after synod to
address growing concerns being expressed over Resolution 6)
He also suggests that to understand what
was meant by resolution 6 people would be best served to go back and
look at the "original documents." The original documents he points to
contained resolves (6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) It is true that resolution 7-9 were removed
from the package and were no longer to be considered after heated
debate on them the day before. The clarification that existed
in R 7-9 was apparently still fresh on the minds of the delegates. A
clarification that Mr. Hertzog makes no mention of.
About a year and a half had passed by the time Mr Hertzog writes
this article. Since the Second Partial Report, Mr Hertzog believes
his “sensitivity to political correctness” ( reviewer’s italics -
the phrase is key to Mr. Hertzog’s mind set I believe) “has
heightened” he believes . He asks us to consider Resolution 10 of
the same partial report: RESOLVED (10) The church shall continue to
enter into dialogue in a Christian manner with homosexual persons in
order to understand their lives and spirituality. Mr. Hertzog goes
on to state that the wording, though meant well, can be
misinterpreted to support a “we” vs “they” relationship between
homosexual Moravians and the rest of the Moravian congregation. He
fears that the homosexual member of a congregation will view the
language to mean he is an outsider. He asks us all to search out and
“adopt the most inclusive interpretation of all legislative
language.”
Mr Hertzog then indulges in a long re-analysis of the parable of the
wealthy merchant and the three servants. He talks about how the
merchant goes on a long trip and allots equal shares of money to the
three servants and advises them to increase the wealth. He tells how
two of the servants invested the money and increased it while the
third servant buried the money and risked it not, thereby increasing
it not. Usually, he states, that is interpreted as two servants
doing as instructed and obtaining the merchant’s accolades, while he
admonishes the third servant for not doing as instructed. We assume
the third servant feared losing money in an investment and incurring
the merchant’s wrath. By lacking courage and not following
instructions, he incurred the very thing he feared. Mr. Hertzog
states he came to a realization of another interpretation of the
parable, however. He says he now sees it as possibly the third
servant, realizing the avarice of the merchant, buried the money and
made no increase through defiance. That his presenting the money
back without increase was an admonition to the merchant condemning
him for his avarice, and THAT was why the merchant was so upset with
the third servant. He states his new view is that the “dishonest
businessman got just what he deserved”. Some, Mr. Hertzog states,
might see the servant’s reasoning (as revised by Mr Hertzog) as
being very righteous. He states that his take on this is that the
servant was self-righteous and the master’s anger came from the
judgmental attitude of the servant. His take is that the Master was
angry because only the Master may judge. By this reasoning, Mr
Hertzog maintains, we should not be judgmental of other folks, and
allow only the Master to judge others. That our judgment of another
person is self-righteousness and will risk our Master’s great
displeasure.
Mr Hertzog concludes by stating that there are a number of issues
that are dividing the Moravians both in the US and abroad. One of
these issues is sexual orientation. He states these issues must be
talked about but sees dangerous ground under our feet as we talk
about these issues. The danger is that we judge the folks holding
the opposing views. That when one group sees they will not be able
to change the other group’s minds they begin to judge the people who
hold the opposing view.
He believes this sort of intolerance of each other has caused some
members to stop coming to church activities, to withhold tithes and
offerings, and to even withdraw from membership altogether. He
apparently mourns the physical loss of membership saying “in a world
as needy as ours, any decrease in ministry is inexcusable, probably
sinful, and an outrageous example of bad stewardship!” One gets the
feeling that the “bad stewardship” he speaks of resides not in
promoting a divisive revision of doctrine but rather in those who
chose to leave.
Mr. Hertzog does say a moratorium is probably a good thing for these
issues while we ponder them and listen to what the Holy Spirit says
to us about them for a while. He states we should review the PEC(N)
interpretive booklet and its concluding summary on Resolution 6 to
help guide us in this process. He asks just how essential is
Resolution 6 and if we will be judged on our decision before God. He
thinks yes, but he states we will most surely be judged for how we
treated each other while we discuss it.
Web team review
1/14/05
|
