Referendum 74: A Pastoral Letter from Pastor Erik P. Kindem
September 23, 2012
Sisters and Brothers of Peace,
On September 18, 2012, a resolution to publicly endorse Washington State Referendum 74 was presented at the Church Council meeting. The resolution came from members of the Peace Inclusivity Task Force and was presented by Leanne Damborg and Lisa Boeckh. As my contribution to our ensuing discussion, I presented a Pastoral Letter in favor of the resolution. The essential content of my Pastoral Letter is detailed below and I invite you to read it and learn why I advocated for this position.
In June of 2008, after an extensive conversation over a period of years, our congregation chose to publicly state its commitment to welcome Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LGBT) people into our community and mission. At a special congregational meeting we voted overwhelmingly (83% yes, 15% no, with one abstention) to become a Reconciling in Christ (RIC) congregation and to embrace the following statement:
Christ calls us to reconciliation and wholeness in a world that can be filled with alienation and brokenness. In faithfulness to the Gospel and to our Lutheran heritage, we answer Christ’s call to be agents of healing and safety, particularly for people who have been marginalized by our society. As a Christian community, we invite all people to join us as we work to better understand the meaning of grace for our lives. We welcome people of all sexual orientations and gender identities into the life and mission of our congregation.
Our commitment to this position, once again, is public: it is published in our worship bulletin each week, it is communicated on our exterior sign, and it is on our website. In making this public statement we are saying that as a matter of faithfulness to the gospel, we consider ourselves agents of healing and safety, especially to the marginalized. Among those whom we consider marginalized we include gay and lesbian persons.
To be an agent is to be an advocate. When we write letters to elected leaders on hunger related issues next month in the Offering of Letters campaign, we will be advocating for a specific outcome. We are saying, in effect, that not all outcomes are equal. Some outcomes are just and fair, and conform to the vision of how God would have us treat our neighbor, and some are not.
How is it that we dare to make such a statement? We take our cue from our understanding of the gospel and the life and teaching of our Lord, who calls us to care for the last and the least among us; who commanded: Go and do likewise. Loving our neighbor is not an optional activity we can choose to engage in our not to engage in. It is in fact what the life of faith is about. Being public about what our faith means in particular circumstances is essential. The authority to go public originates not in any church committee or group of leaders, but comes from the gospel itself.
It is my opinion that if such authority applies to the letters we write as advocates for the marginalized regarding, for example, the supplemental nutrition legislation being considered in Congress, then it also applies to other issues on which we have achieved substantial agreement. Following this reasoning, a public position of support on Referendum 74 can be understood as an extension of the commitment we made when we became a Reconciling in Christ congregation. Had we chosen not to endorse Referendum 74, then we would need to have serious conversation about what being a Reconciling in Christ congregation means in real terms.
At the congregational forum on Referendum 74 that was held September 9th, as we talked about the historical evolution of marriage, the different things it has meant culturally, and how it has changed through the years, it was pointed out that some states in the U.S., until recently, had laws on their books prohibiting people of different races from marrying. That set my mind to thinking. Say, for the sake of example, that Washington State had such a law on the books prohibiting people of different races from marrying, and that there was a Referendum on the ballot to remove that restriction. Would we be moved to take a public stance on such a Referendum as a church? What would our stance be? Some might argue (and undoubtedly have argued, in the history of such legislation) that “the Bible does not condone interracial marriage.” Others might suggest that a group of folks in the congregation opposed to interracial marriage might feel ostracized if the congregation took a public position in favor of it. Still others might suggest that if the congregation wasn’t unanimous in its outlook, then it should not make any public statement. In the light of what we now understand about the gospel: “In Christ there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male nor female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus,” (Galatians 3:28), I would argue that the endorsement of a referendum freeing citizens from a racist cultural practice would be the right course for our community of faith to take. I believe that this example provides a window into understanding what is at stake in Referendum 74.
Some have expressed reservations about taking a public stance on any given issue, suggesting that when we “mix religion and politics,” we head down a slippery slope. I believe that, while we must always be thoughtful and diligent when we enter public conversations, our faith is meant to be public, and we must therefore take the risk of defining our faith stance in the public arena, choosing carefully the specific issues about which we feel compelled to speak. The teaching of our larger church (ELCA), including our Social Statements is helpful in this regard. Integral to my position is the statement approved by the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly: Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. If you haven’t yet read the statement, I invite you to do so.
Some members of Peace have expressed concern about what advocating a particular position may do to the fabric of our community. While I applaud the sensitivity to others that such concern manifests, I also know that we are unlikely to find 100% agreement within our congregation on any given issue, whether controversial or not. Our goal should not be achieving unanimity, but rather devising a conversational process that intentionally invites and allows space for anyone who desires to offer his or her perspective. Since we are a Christian community, this dialog takes place within a framework of faith.
Taking a public stance on an issue may very well lead to tension in the congregation. But our goal should not be to cultivate a community life that is devoid of tension. Let’s remember –Jesus created all kinds of tension! He constantly got into trouble because his teaching and his acting did not conform to what the religious and civil leaders considered proper teaching or behavior. Ultimately, he took the road of the cross and was willing to lay down his life for the vision of God’s reign he embodied. If we, as church, are afraid of stepping into controversy, then we are not modeling ourselves after Christ. Not that we seek out trouble. We never pursue controversy for controversy’s sake. But when we take principled stands on issues, informed by our understanding of the gospel and the best teaching of the church, we do define ourselves; we say, as our Brother Martin did, “here we stand and we can do no other, so help us God.” Simultaneously, we continue to do all we can to reach out to one another and stay connected “as sisters and brothers for whom Christ also has died.”
Christians can and do have legitimate disagreements and can come to differing conclusions about how the Gospel compels us to act in any given situation. Minority opinions and interpretations should be listened to with care, and the people who share them should always be treated honorably and respectfully. But we should not allow the lack of unanimity to render the majority voice silent. When it comes to the issue of Referendum 74, to not take action is, in fact, to act. We have already made a public declaration of our commitment to LGBT people. If we stand by now, silently, while other communities of faith speak publicly against the referendum, then our prior commitment is called into question.
There is another crucial reason why it is important for our congregation to publicly support Referendum 74: the lack of a legal, uniform recognition of same-gendered relationships has resulted in situations of terrible injustice at times when people are most vulnerable—such as during health crises, sudden accidents, or death. By publicly supporting Referendum 74, we demonstrate our care for and support of all current—and future—members, constituents, and families of Peace who are LGBT, including the children of our congregation who may not yet realize their status. We convey the message that we support them as equals in Christ, that they will be offered the same welcome at Font and Table and the same level of pastoral care to which every other member of our congregation is entitled, and that we support the same civil liberties and civic responsibilities that are birthrights for all God’s children.
You need to know that the evolution of my own thinking on the issue of same gender marriage is long and complicated and has been influenced by events in my own personal life as well as the ongoing Biblical and theological debates. I haven’t always been in the place I find myself today. In fact, there are times in the not so distant past when I might have been aligned with those who oppose Referendum 74. This only enhances my sensitivity to those who find themselves at odds with marriage equality. But I am now of the opinion that the civil right to marry and to receive all the rights and benefits—as well as the duties and responsibilities—that come with the institution, should be available to all people.
On September 18th I signed a public letter of endorsement for Referendum 74, and so you may see my name published along with other faith leaders who have made that declaration.
My love for you, dear people of Peace, does not wax or wane depending on whether we are of one mind on this or any other issue. It is rooted in something much deeper. We belong to one another because of what Christ has done for us. His gracious encounter with us at Font and Table equips and enables us to be his body in the world. God’s mission is much bigger than any one issue. And yet it is also related to all issues where basic human rights, dignities and freedoms are at stake. I look forward to our continuing conversation and to fostering a spirit of respectful dialog and purposeful action within our parish.
Your servant in Christ,
Pastor Erik P. Kindem
What does this mean?