Why were discussions
on some resolutions in both the Northern and
Southern Provincial Synods of 2002 so heated and
divisive? Why did they take such a toll on our
denomination? Why haven’t we put the issues and
actions behind us? Why has dialogue been
difficult?1. Is the Southern Province
Synod
Resolution 54’s calling for “dialogue and
healing” a problem?
RESOLVED THAT: the members of this
Synod of the Southern Province covenant to
confess and repent of the attitudes and
actions that have brought us to this
brokenness; and
RESOLVED, THAT the Provincial Elders
Conference and the Bishops of the Southern
Province, give leadership to a process,
starting with the clergy, that will
encourage and enable the church to address
the divisions over matters of doctrine and
faith; and
RESOLVED, THAT this process be
.considered as a "search for sound doctrine”
and a "testing" of the Ground of the
Unity "in the light of the Holy
Scriptures, and
RESOLVED, THAT the PEC and Bishops
call the members of the Southern Province to
fervent prayer, intercession and fasting for
the church during this process, and
RESOLVED, THAT the results of this
process be reported to the congregations, to
other provinces and to the Unity Board, and
be it further
RESOLVED, THAT this process include
attention to the Ground of the Unity
and other expressions of the faith and order
of the Moravian Church.
2. Is the
Northern Provincial Synod
Resolution 6’s call to allow “homosexuals
to be allowed to celebrate their lives
completely within the bounds of the church ”
a problem?
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;
and be it further…..
The answer to the questions might seem to be
“absolutely not!”….. The answers are not so
clear cut without clarifying information. In a
response to Glenn Hertzog I questioned the
contradiction between the clarifying information
that was included and made available to the
delegates during the n- synod discussions of
resolution 6 and the clarifying information that
was produced and distributed by the PEC-north,
after synod. Mr. Hertzog dismisses concerns
about resolution 6 as invalid due to
misinterpretation of original documents. He
states:
What could those delegates have been reading
that would have lead so many (including pastors)
to leave the synod early and ultimately even chose
to give up their ministry in the Moravian
Church? Mr. Hertzog makes clear that the
misunderstanding was on the part of those who
were dismayed that the resolution called for the
Moravian church to now step out and embrace the
homosexual lifestyle with its associated
personal behaviors and arrangements that are not
biblical or have not been a part of the
Christian Church tradition in 2000 years. Is it
only an anomaly that Rev. Aden Ward writing
after the Synod was adjourned, apparently
misunderstood the intent of R-6 as well, when he
writes and distributes a letter in which he
states:
“Given what we know about human
personality and gender development, I also
reject Scripture's condemnation of what we
term homosexuality. I believe that the
church is correct in welcoming all persons
including homosexuals into the life and
ministry of the church. How wonderful it
would be if we could now step out in front
of society and officially accept and preside
over gay and lesbian unions and accept gay
and lesbian clergy with their partners.”
(see
article)
I do not want to spend the readers time
reviewing the language and appropriateness of
these resolutions as they were finalized. That
continues to be reviewed and discussed in many
places in our denomination as well as this web
site. I want to look at what went wrong that
caused so many people to have concerns that were
labeled as misunderstandings.
- What
can we do to prevent misunderstood language in
the 2006 Synod on any resolution or issue
discussed?
If there was a common thread to both Moravian
Synods ( north and south ) involving R-54 and
R-6, it was that individuals who had authored
those original documents clearly had an
objective in mind that was either totally
disposed of or was modified in its final
version. During the process from committee
development of a resolution to its presentation
on the floor for a vote many people have input
into its final version. Only a few have access
to the original document that should be relied
upon to most clearly explains the original
intent.
When R-54 came to the floor for vote only a
few people knew that it began life as a document
that called for: A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING
SALVATION THROUGH CHRIST ALONE, which seemed
to be imperative to many who were responding to
recent news that a minister in the Moravian
Church, along with many other Church leaders in
Christian Churches, were actually teaching and
preaching that Jesus is not the only way to
salvation and that we as Christians need to drop
that understanding from our “Message.”
The evolution of R-54 refined the document to
“A call to the Search for Sound Doctrine and
Reaffirmation of the Ground of the Unity” that
included :
RESOLVED, THAT this Synod of the
Southern Province reaffirms that the Ground
of the Unity in its fullness is and
continues to express the doctrine and faith
of the Moravian Church and is, therefore,
the document with which this process starts.
."
Finally, floor motions changed the Title to
“A CALL FOR DIALOGUE AND HEALING ” and replaced
the resolve printed above to:
Clearly there was different motivation and
underlying objectives to the original document
and for its transformation. Those underlying
objectives were only known by a few people. Most
of the delegates were voting on a resolution
that they saw as having had little significance
or relevance to them or the church at large. In
the case of Resolution 54 the true concerns of
the author were never revealed to the delegates
until they had returned home and began to read
about their church in the news paper. Even then
many were not able to make the connection to the
document they had voted on called Resolution 54.
It is problematic for this writer that
delegates were not in the loop on the issues
surrounding this Resolution. There even appears
as though no attempt was made to inform the
delegates of the intent of the original or the
revised version. Assuming there was no
underlying
objective is ludicrous.
In the case of resolution 6 in the northern
provincial synod, the underlying intent was
clearly detailed within the original second
partial report. The clarifying details were
included as resolves 7 through 9 listed below:
Resolution 7 : Within the household
of faith, those homosexual persons who have
chosen to live within the bounds of a
committed relationship, be recognized as
committed and covenant couples, in full
standing with other committed and covenanted
relationships; and be it further
Resolution 8 : The final paragraph of
the Book of order, paragraph 202. (e) shall
be amended to read: “Ordained ministers,
while single, are called to a life of
celibacy (sexual abstinence); those who have
vowed with another to live in a committed
life relationship are called to a life of
sexual fidelity to their partner;” and
Resolution 9: The 2002 Synod of the
Northern Province shall encourage “open and
affirming” congregations, where homosexual
persons may participate fully in the life of
the church, where they would have equal
opportunities to commit and covenant their
relationships, and where their children may
be baptized and raised in the Christian
faith;
When it became clear that the
original document had little chance of passing
approval after a day of heated debate, the
discussion ended. The next day the document was
revised to remove resolves 7 through 9 which had
caused much of the resistance. The also
troubling language that called for the church to
“allow homosexuals to celebrate their lives”
remained without the authors original intent
being included. Subsequent attempts to explain
the language by the PEC in their
statement
Resolution 6 An Interpretation of Moravian
Church Northern Province and Unity Synod Actions
Regarding Homosexuality,
and
(see booklet),
prepared by the Provincial Elders’ Conference,
Northern Province, and dated January 4, 2003,
and by Glenn Hertzog in his article in the Hinge
draw an interpretation that is inconsistent with
the author's intent…… an interpretation that many
knew about and understood. The vote passed with
the intent left unclear for later discernment
by the PEC .
Again here was a situation where there was
clearly at least two polar views on the intent
of the resolution. Delegates were voting on a
document that was saying different things to
different people. The solution would have been
so easy if the language could have been clearly
stating the same thing to everyone. The
resolution could have been voted on and the
delegates could have expressed their collective
opinion on one understanding of the language.
As I have personally been following the
language of letters, statements, memos and
articles from our church leaders, I find it very
troubling that the apparent recognition of what
Glenn Hertzog identifies as “sensitivity to
political correctness” has given birth to a
dictionary of new terms and expressions and
styles of writing that intentionally seems not
to speak clearly and with common meaning, unlike
the writings of our forbearers whose language
was simple, clear and to the point.
Language is not likely to become clearer and
more specific so delegate preparation must
include study of the issues that traditionally
come to Synods. I would strongly recommend a
booklet by C. Daniel Crews, Archivist of the
Moravian Church, Southern Province, for his
excellent research and publication “ Confessing
Our Unity in Christ “ which is available at the
Book Store or at the Archives. I strongly
recommend that you get a copy of your own. Mr.
Crews prepared this publication at the request
of the President of the PEC of the Southern
Province for presentation to the Moravian Clergy
Association in January 1994. See brief review
here.
Even if my concern that resolution’s
underlying intent is being intentionally
concealed from delegates is wrong, I still
maintain that it is essential that all delegates
have all views and interpretations available to
them. Much of that responsibility lies with the
individual delegate and his congregation. Some
lies with the Chairman of the Synod to make sure
speakers of all sides of an issue are clearly
and fairly heard. Delegates should be informed
of the intent of the original author of a
resolution and get explanations of the evolution
of that document in committee.
No delegate should return from synod having
to read the news paper to find out the
ramifications of their voting actions at synod.
