Answers are received to questions about sexuality and ministry.

The Annual Conference Council reported answers to questions raised by Michigan District's 2003 query, "Clarification of Confusion." That query followed the previous year's Conference action declaring it "inappropriate" to license or ordain individuals "engaging in homosexual practice."

The answers note that the 2002 action was a policy decision that was based on polity, which "requires that ordination be reserved for those who will support the actions of Annual Conference." The council said the action did not change the 1983 Statement on Human Sexuality, and that present polity for licensing and ordination is sufficient.

This year's answers follow an initial response from the council in 2003, that "no one known to be engaging in homosexual practices will be licensed or ordained in the Church of the Brethren."

After receiving a report of the answers in pre-Conference meetings, the Standing Committee of district delegates requested copies and directed that the response be distributed also to the delegate body. Jim Hardenbrook as chair of the Annual Conference Council read the answers to the delegate body. The item was received as a report, without time given for discussion or questions.

The concerns of the query had been referred to the council by Annual Conference in 2003. The first response from the council in 2003 added that, "specific structural and theological issues will be answered later." Since then, Hardenbrook said, the council's response also has included visits of council members to Michigan District, other meetings with district leaders, work on the issues in other settings including by staff of the General Board's Ministry Office and the Council of District Executives, and a listening session at the 2004 Annual Conference.

The Standing Committee discussion ranged over a variety of issues including whether the letter should be shared at all with the Annual Conference delegates. "The query came from Michigan, but Michigan isn't the only district that holds these concerns," said John Willoughby, Michigan representative to Standing Committee. "I'm confused by the fact that we'd handle this one differently, other than the fact that we just want this to go away," he said later in the discussion. "I think that the Annual Conference as a whole needs to hear the answer."

Annual Conference did not request a report back from the council when it referred the query in 2003, according to Annual Conference secretary Fred Swartz. Many Standing Committee delegates expressed the understanding that the council's answers close the issue.

Other issues raised in the Standing Committee discussion included the unusual nature of the response to this query, that it is the first query to be referred for an answer to the Annual Conference Council, whether the council's answer is subject to approval by Annual Conference, whether the answer should be treated as an unfinished item of business, whether Standing Committee should give a verbal report to the Conference delegates or include the letter as a written document in the delegate packets, and whether Standing Committee would include the Michigan District response in its report.

Some spoke of the newness of the Annual Conference Council itself, which as Hardenbrook told the Standing Committee, has only been in existence for five years. The role of the council is still being clarified, said 2006 Annual Conference moderator Ronald Beachley. "This is new territory," Beachley said, adding that the council was not sure how to report on its action. As the first query to be referred to the council, "the answer to this query has been different from the beginning," said Hardenbrook.

Source: 7/05/2006 Newsline
top