To members of the 2007 Standing Committee

Brothers and Sisters,

Greetings in the name of Jesus, whose work we seek to continue peacefully, simply, together.

We are aware that Standing Committee members are requested not to bring individual letters as business for standing committee. We are aware that you may be asked to hear a report related to the Northview congregation, the South Central Indiana district, and North Manchester Church of the Brethren.

This position paper is being sent to each of you as a follow up to the letter which I understand the conference officers have or will share with you in relation to the way our denomination seems to be responding to strongly held issues. The purpose of this paper is not intended to be limited only to on going discussions about homosexuality within our denomination. The current mood to censure local churches and the assumption that Annual Conference statements are mandates rather than invitations for members to live by, along with the unevenness in the way the mandate perspective is being pressed on some issues and not on others is of great concern to us. The position paper seeks to remind us of our history of being able to receive the actions and position papers of Annual Conference as indications of the best thinking of conference at the time of the action, while at the same time allowing for new light and for differences in the way the local church chooses to acknowledge and live by them.

Toward the close of the paper we arrive at the issue of homosexuality. It seems to be the current issue causing so much strife and antagonism, resulting in divisive attitudes and actions that do not represent the best we Brethren aspire to be in following Jesus. The options listed are possible responses, but they are not intended to be exhaustive. There are many options which we may consider as we come to action which will provide a different level of relating to one another on areas where we disagree. We covet any effort that will encourage us to accept differences while continuing in real community. We are hoping that the Standing Committee will provide leadership in that direction.

Position paper partners who participated in the concerns and ideas presented are listed below. Responses which individuals wish to make may be sent to me or any of the other partners. The position paper itself includes a list of past Annual Conference officers who desired to lend their support to the paper.

God's blessings on you as you meet to do the work of Standing Committee.

Position Paper Partners
Earle Fike Jr.
Elaine Sollenberger
William Eberly
Jim Lehman

An Unofficial Brethren Position Paper
Including proposals for consideration

Introduction

This paper is written out of concern for the health and well being of those of us who are known as the Church of the Brethren. We are a family of faith that has a long history of conversation and agreeing to disagree on matters of faith and practice while remaining in community. We are currently experiencing deep disagreements on how we can faithfully respond to our baptismal vows "to live in keeping with the spirit and teachings of Jesus" in the context of cultural changes related to new understandings of human sexuality and covenantal relationships. There are strident voices calling for censure and uniformity of practice, a stance which we believe is not consistent with the best in our Brethren heritage. We believe our history of conversation that both listens and witnesses, and which allows for differences of opinion in relation to Biblical interpretation and to Annual Conference statements, characterizes the best of our Brethren willingness to stay in community as we remain open to new understandings in our faith pilgrimage. This presentation is an effort to review some possible options for ways to continue in conversation and growth in our faith understanding of human sexuality. We invite your participation and support.

The Situation

There has been a radical change in the way local congregation and Annual Conference conversations have proceeded in the last decade or so. The cherished concern for understanding and enlightenment in community and delegate conversations about faith and action has given way to rhetoric that begins to reflect the abusive character of governmental politics. We no longer think of ourselves as brothers and sisters seeking to enlighten or persuade, but as conservative or liberal or progressive, seeking to win in argument or judgment a victory which discounts the person and position of the other. Common ground has become less important than perceived rightness. Simple civility, politeness, and courtesy seem mislaid in community discourse. It's time to take a step in the direction of recovering some time honored principles which have governed our life together across the years.

There are two important descriptive archetypes reflected in biblical faith tradition which represent each of us at different times in our pilgrimage. The Bible holds in high regard those who protect the law and the tradition (obligation-keepers such as Moses, and the Priestly tradition). It also holds in high regard those who, through openness to the Spirit, search for new light and new understanding (liberation seekers such as Abraham and the prophets). And of course there is Jesus who incorporated both perspectives in his life and teachings. Just as any of us at limes may be a "keeper," so any of us at other times may be a "seeker," As individuals, we are stronger for being both, and a faith community is blessed when these two perspectives live in balance in a respectful community.¹

We sometimes envy those congregations and denominations where faith precept and practice are mandatory and any challenging diversity is unacceptable. In such communities of faith there is little uncertainty. There are answers to all questions and regulations for all behavior. But unanimity may not be so much a sign of strength as it is a sign of thought control and/or comfort in relationships. Absolute certainty and closed mindedness leave little room for growing in spiritual understanding. Historically we Brethren refused creeds because we were not comfortable being only keepers limited by prescribed historic truths. We also wanted to be seekers open to growing in the faith and open to the promised possibility of new light. Openness to new truth means investigating and studying and listening and talking with one another with openness to the Holy Spirit. It means coming to agreement on some things, and being willing to live and serve together on other issues where we have no unanimity. That stance seems to have come into disrepute in our current dialogue.

We are in agreement that Annual Conference is our highest governing authority. It is not, however, as some seem to believe, a kind of Supreme Court that makes laws to govern individual and congregational behavior. It is, rather, a delegate body that gives a representative voice to where the community is at any given time on the issue being discussed. It strives for unanimity but does not require it. A voted position is not intended to muzzle seekers nor, more importantly, to require absolute obedience by individuals or specific congregations. Annual Conference desires us to take seriously the gathered wisdom of our representative delegates' vote. But since early in the 20th century our Annual Conference is essentially invitational in polity and decisions. Since that time we have historically tried to avoid drawing sharp lines of distinction that might lead to separation and have allowed for a healthy ambiguity that encourages growing in the faith while loving and supporting others when disagreements arise.

Historical examples of invitational polity

It may be important for us to remember the ways in which Annual Conference has dealt with differences of opinion in our past history. The flavor of Annual Conference procedures since the schism era between 1700 and 1883 seems more willing to be tolerant of differences. In an 1883 query requesting one form of practice in the feetwashing, the Annual Conference answer was "We desire very much to see a uniform practice in the church. But we see no way of accomplishing that object at the present time in the practices referred to in the query." As early as 1888, just a few years after the great divide, a controversial item came to Conference, and the delegates could not reach unanimity. So their final action was to take no action but to "strongly urge forbearance with each other" (Minutes 1888, art. 12).

There are many examples of this invitational rather than legal mandate understanding of Annual Conference actions. We are agreed that all war is sin. On the one hand, we affirm that killing other human beings is unacceptable. On the other hand, we exhibit an unwillingness to disenfranchise, or in parable language, to weed out and discard those who choose to do military service. Nor do we discipline or disenfranchise those who choose to join the NRA or who choose to own guns in order to defend their family against violence in their homes.

A more recent example of allowing for differing opinions while continuing to live together is the 1979 Annual Conference paper on "Biblical Inspiration and Authority." In section IV, the paper honestly accepts two perspectives by making affirmations which affirm where we agree while at the same time noting where we do not yet agree. The following section V entitled "Holding One another in Love and Fellowship" is, in our time, one of the finest contemporary statements of what it means to be members of the Church of the Brethren who hold one another in love and community while disagreeing and being open to new light.

Within somewhat the same spirit of that paper, we are currently living with an Annual Conference statement which allows for the ordination and acceptance of women as ministers within our denomination. We do not, however, take punitive action against those individuals or congregations who refuse to follow that decision. The paper is not interpreted as mandating all districts and/or congregations to live by that decision. We recognize that there are those who are uncomfortable with the stance of the paper, so congregations and districts may choose not to follow Annual Conference action without fear of being disciplined or disenfranchised. Except for those times when Brethren groups have chosen to separate over disagreements, we have practiced a style of living together which encompasses and accepts both keeping traditions and being open to new light.

A noticeable change

This stance of forbearance and openness among the Brethren prevailed until just a few years ago. From 1978 through 1982, Annual Conference encouraged studies on human sexuality. In 1983, conference discussed a committee report on Human Sexuality. That report was an excellent paper. It exhibits careful biblical study and is filled with scientific information appropriate to that time and which is, for the most part, still applicable today. In the paper's discussion of the church's response to homosexuality, there is a clear and forthright prohibition against promiscuous relationships and recreational sex, a faith position clearly rooted in what biblical covenant means. But an amendment was added which stated that covenantal relationships between homosexual persons is an additional lifestyle option, "but in the church's search for a Christian understanding of human sexuality, this alternative is not acceptable." That amendment is now being interpreted by some congregations as a rigid requirement which requires unanimity of practice by all congregations, a position which is ignored by the same congregations in relation to other Annual Conference statements.

The current Annual Conference paper on Human Sexuality does not say that homosexuality is a sin. It says, "Some persons, for reasons not fully understood, experience a romantic attraction for persons of the same sex. Some of these persons claim Christ as Lord and are actively involved in the life of the church. They need the active support and love of the church as they struggle with God's plan for their lives. In ministry to homosexual persons, the church must guard against oversimplifying Christian morality. Instead, the church should endeavor with Christian love and with gentle evangelistic skill to offer redemptive help. Proof texts, condemnation, and a sense of guilt will not empower change." Careful reading of the paper would seem to suggest that the inclusion of the amendment created an inconsistency. The original paper suggested that the first option, celibacy, "ought to be voluntary and not a requirement." It then recognizes that the second option, conversion, "is impossible for some." If conversion is impossible, then celibacy is not an option but the only remaining choice. Only those who believe that homosexuality is a chosen profession have cause to require it to be changed by prayer, discipline, or willed determination. And if such an effort is unsuccessful, the person is then required to lead a celibate life in order to be fully accepted for life and service in the community of faith. On the other hand, if the original option of covenant relationship had remained an option, then homosexual persons would have a choice among several options and the word voluntary would apply.

Excluding an acceptable understanding of covenant relationships excludes many persons from full commitment of life to Christ and His community of faith called Brethren. We believe that position is untenable in the light of scientific study and short sighted when considering the spirit of the New Testament, and the evangelistic endeavors of the early church. We would do well to emulate The New Testament church's experience of living, serving, and laboring under the primary confession of Christ as Lord without major prohibitions prescribed by additional confessions or mandated specific beliefs or practices. As the early church developed, they were more interested in the confession of "Christ is Lord" than exclusion for specific behaviors. The Apostle Paul reminded them that in Christ, the dividing walls of hostility that separated persons from full membership and their opportunity for service had been torn down. If the Apostle Peter had not seen a vision and responded in a way contradictory to the absolute certainty of his faith heritage, circumcision (certainly no insignificant human sexuality adjustment!) would have prevented Gentiles from belonging to the family of Christ. In such a climate, the Apostle Paul's ministry would have either dissipated and disappeared, or created a separate sect.

Before his death, a long time much loved prophet in our midst, Brother Dale Aukerman sent an open letter in May of 1993 on the subject of homosexuality to the elected leaders of the Church of the Brethren and to the Brethren Revival Fellowship. He wrote, "What I deplore in the current context is the push to make this issue the key test of faithfulness in the church. That push, I believe, is very much a disservice to the gospel and is not in accord with the New Testament.....A more permissive attitude with regard to a covenantal homosexual lifestyle does not, so far as I can see, go directly and basically against the gospel. A case can be made that the biblical passages have to do with promiscuous, not with covenantal homosexual relations. Even if we see that case as mistake, we should not regard those who make it simply as enemies of God's truth." That kind of thinking represents the best in New Testament openness to keeping and seeking within the faith community.

Revisiting the meaning of Covenant

We believe it is time to review our understandings of Covenant. Covenant is a promise of faithful relationship between two parties. Biblically it applies to the relationship between God and a specific person (such as Abraham or others); between God and a community of persons (the nation of Israel or others); and between one specific human and another, such as the covenant made between Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31:44-50) and Jonathan and David (1 Samuel 18:1-3.) Agreements regarding behavior within the covenant are agreed to by the participants. Ignoring those agreements constitutes the breaking of the covenant.

The honoring of promises, the absence of promiscuity, and the presence or faithfulness to the other person are the essential characteristics of covenant, The human sexuality of the covenant individuals is not an issue and is not prescribed in biblical covenants. From a biblical perspective, we would have the right to expect the same fidelity and the same prohibitions against promiscuity in all covenantal relationships. As the church participates in state marriages; we do ask participants to share covenantal vows to confirm the faithfulness of their relationship. In addition to the standard wedding vows, a rather complete sample of additional covenantal words appears in "For All Who Minister"; words essential to what biblical covenant means. After expressing the promise to be a helpmate, the person speaks words like the following:

"... I promise to consider your interests and not merely my own. With divine assistance, I promise to show you love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. I promise to communicate with you as openly and honestly as I can and will share with you my life, feelings, hopes, joys, frustrations, disappointments, anxieties, and dreams; and I will listen as you share with me. I will try to meet your needs and will respect your individuality as well as my own. I will work with you to build a lasting relationship of love and commitment for the glory and honor of God. I give myself freely to you for as long as I live." Pg. 387

Many of us will continue to make our covenant within accepted state law. But the principle of separation of church and state and the threat of allowing the state to determine the meaning of marriage from strictly a legal perspective should give us pause. Local churches should have the right to say what is acceptable within their community of faith in terms of their understanding of covenant faithfulness. If two single persons decide that their covenant is defined by faithfulness in love and support, and the quality and depth of that love is something they wish to limit only to one another; and if the congregation decides that their covenant would be beneficial to the life and ministry of the congregation, then the congregation should have the right to confirm their covenant. Such congregational practice would allow for two persons to enjoy the privilege of loving and being loved with the blessing of the church and without the legal punishments prescribed by the state. Such local church practices in relation to faithful covenant agreements need not jeopardize or intimidate any congregation who disagrees with that position. As we have noted historically, we already allow much diversity in congregational practices, and do not require uniformity of practice as a kind of litmus test for being called a Church of the Brethren. We believe opening the right of congregations to support covenant services will deepen the potential for many of our members to participate in the more complete experience of love which God has in mind for human beings.

Some options for consideration

Option 1. Because of present proposed actions related to understanding the application or the 1983 paper, it might be helpful if Standing Committee were to bring an interpretation paper to Annual Conference affirming that the present statement that covenant relations are unacceptable is not to be interpreted as mandatory for all congregations, but should be viewed in the same fashion as other statements which allow for responses approved by local churches or districts which ignore or differ from Annual Conference positions. Such a statement would prevent congregations and districts from taking punitive or censure actions against other congregations and districts.

Option 2. As a denomination, we are a far piece from coming to consensus on the issues of human sexuality and homosexuality. As divisive as we fear it may be, it may be time for us to enter into a second Conference-approved study that would provide opportunities for updated information, clarification, and further conversation to help us understand what a New Testament approach should be in our time. This option commends itself as a way of coming to agreed understanding rather than allowing ad hoc decisions here and there to create denominational precedent without total community discussion

Option 3. A third option would omit the expense and time necessary for an updated study. A district query or a standing committee action could propose a reaffirmation of the present paper on Human Sexuality and propose an addendum for Annual Conference consideration which might be something like the following:

Section C of the 1983 paper on human sexuality describes a profound understanding of the way human sexuality is affirmed and experienced in covenant relationships. Because it understands and supports the way in which love is most completely understood as humans give themselves spiritually and physically in covenant faithfulness to one other, we affirm that covenant relationships are an additional life style option. We believe that in the church's search for a Christian understanding of human sexuality, any two persons who for personal or financial reasons prefer not to participate in a legal state marriage may request their local congregation to approve and hold a Christian Covenant Service in which their vows of love and faithfulness are understood to be as binding in their life and behavior as those in an official state recognized wedding.

Conclusion

As noted earlier, we have stayed together as a denomination because we have allowed congregations whose members conscientiously disagree with Annual Conference positions to live out of their own faith understanding. We desire to continue that tradition. Since we are experiencing efforts by some congregations to condemn and punish congregations who do not conscientiously agree with specific positions which are of primary importance to them, we believe we should find ways to reaffirm our understanding of our polity as being invitational rather than mandatory. We understand that some of these proposals will be uncomfortable for many of our members. We submit them with the genuine hope that they may contribute to our ability as the Church of the Brethren to continue the work of Jesus simply, peacefully, and together.

¹ The terms Obligation Keeper and Liberation Seeker are adapted from Henry Brinton's excellent book "Balancing Acts", CSS Publishing Company Inc., Lima, Ohio 2006

The following persons have agreed to have their names appear in support of this paper

Past Moderators

Harold Bomberger 1971
Dale Brown 1972
Dean Miller 1973
A Blair Helman 1976
Warren Groff 1979
William Eberly 1980
Duane Ramsey 1981
Earle Fike, Jr. 1982
Guy Wampler 1987
Elaine Sollenberger 1989/1998
Curtis Dubble 1990
David Wine 1997
Emily Mumma 2000

Past General Secretaries

Robert Neff
Joe Mason interim
Don Miller
S. Loren Bowman

Past Annual Conference Secretaries

Kathy Huffman
Anne Myers
Phyllis Kingery Ruff