General Synod - Day 3 - Worship and Theology committee

I'm posting this late because I got so busy. This came right before McLaren's speech.

Overture to allow close, live-in relatives to bring a child for baptism, in place of parents:
referred to theology commission (standing committee that meets throughout the year)for study, as this needed more time.

Overture to end dialogue over homosexuality:
I was the only delegate from the classis that sent this to synod, and so had to speak to it. Did the best I could to say the open-ended nature of the dialogue leaves open the possibility of our current biblical position being weakened, that such an official dialogue will drain resources and energy from other areas of ministry, and that we aren't suggesting gag orders for everyone (keep it hush hush; too embarrassing) - just no denomination-wide program.
Sent to synod floor recommending against, only 3 votes dissenting, of 23.

Overture to amend the stated purpose of the dialogue to make clear we aren't reconsidering the righteousness of homosexual practice:
More discussion. Winning argument was that this would tie the hands of the committee facilitating dialogue and certain voices would be intimidated if this passed. Dialogue has to stay neutral to be effective.
Sent to synod floor, recommending against, 13-10.

Marriage and sexuality paper, studying the broader theological context of marriage:
This was a good paper, relying heavily on Augustine's ideas on the purposes of marriage (procreation, fidelity, and sacramental bond). Relates this to possible homosexual marriage, noting that such marriage would weaken these purposes, not strengthen them, and that some of these purposes, maybe all, cannot be fulfilled by homosexual unions.
It was sent to the synod floor.

Overtures to write into our church order discipline against church officers teaching the moral acceptability of homosexual practice, or engaging in such.
Little discussion, as it had already been done.
Sent to synod recommending against.



This discussion was an eye opener for me. Sitting around my table were 2 advocates for homosexual practice, and 2 moderates who didn't want to offend unnecessarily. That's my interpretation, though they may not have seen their remarks that way. I tried to get across that this is not a minor issue over which we can agree to disagree, but no one wants to hear that when the alternative is division. I asked what we do when we each respect each other and think intentions are good to understand Scripture, but each think the other's interpretation is wrong. Basic response: just live together - we found a way to do so with women's ordination a while back. I didn't respond to that, but was thinking, "Precisely. And I don't want the same process to happen again."

Very exhausting, depressing time. Then off to Brian McLaren!