In the spring of 2002 I traveled down from Graceland University in Lamoni, IA to Independence, MO where Community of Christ World Headquarters is located for the 2002 World Conference. (The chief legislative body of Community of Christ, then held every 2 years, now every 3). I would attend the conference as a delegate for the Northwest Oregon District, and it would be my first time as a delegate. (History/Background first, then toward the end I get to present day)
Amongst the issues on the agenda were G-5 “Review of Policy on Homosexuality” and G-7 “Homosexuality.” As a legislative body we choose to refer both to the First Presidency, rather than to act upon them. However it was the mover of the motions who moved them to referral right at the start of deliberating them. I can still remember the protesters by a far right wing group with no ties top our faith movement, who stood with signs with hateful messages outside our headquarters because we were engaging in this discussion. Not understanding why they felt the need to come protest us. (If they had ties then perhaps, but with no ties?)
G-5 asked if it had been passed, would have encouraged the First Presidency to work with other bodies of the church to implement a policy “consistent with the principles of inclusion, wholeness, acceptance, and the worth of persons” and report to the 2004 conference about progress. G-7 asked for the 1982 statement on Homosexuality to be set aside, and a policy to be adopted (written or unwritten) that would allow the full participation of homosexual persons in the life of the church including the option to join couples in marriage, were local laws permit, ordination to those in or committed to live in long term monogamous relationships.
A statement did come forward by the end of the year, recognizing that exceptions had been made in years past, to the 1982 Standing High Council guidelines regarding ordination, no more exceptions were to take place (but would also honor all ordinations that had been exceptions to the rule) and a dialogue process would start.
At the time of the 2002 conference these proposals were on the website.
Two years later I flew out from Oregon for the 2004 World Conference, once more a delegate for the North West Oregon District (though that jurisdiction no longer existed but was now part of the Greater Pacific North West USA Mission Center). This time G-4, G-5, G-6, G-10, and G-11 were all dealing with Homosexuality. Once more on the website. G-4 asked that the World Conference have the right to discus without delay or referral all issues before it regarding Homosexuality. It was ruled out of order, as it stated within it was in violation of the parliamentary rules of the assembly and not implementable in some of its provisions. G-5, G-6, and G-10 were almost the same, G-5 and 10 were identical saying the church should adopt the 1982 statement as law of the church, G-6 adding another resolve that said that any “practicing homosexual” which had been ordained contrary to it be removed from office and church officers who knowingly violated the statement and processed calls be admonished and counseled by the First Presidency. G-11 requested a new statement be crafted to replace the 1982 statement addressing questions of jurisdictional independence, legal and political implications within the context of our national and international communities, real and potential impacts on World Church Theology, sacraments, scriptural cannon, provide annual updates of development , it be brought forward in 2006 as a draft, the church uphold one another through the exploration processes.
As the week progressed two more resolutions came forward, from the youth caucus “Let us not divide” G12, and from the First Presidency “Dialogue on Homosexuality” G-13. G-12 asked the conference another two years to dialogue and prayerful reflection, for the Homosexuality taskforce to study the effects of passing a resolution for or against homosexuals in the priesthood in the many countries where the church is present, to look for ways to reach understanding and compromise that can protect unity and keep with mission statement. G-13 asked for G-5, G-6, G-10, G-11, and G-12 be referred “without prejudice or specific action to the First Presidency as not to hinder the continuing dialogue, encourage the use of listening circles, First Presidency report to the 2006 world conference of progress of listening circles and recommendations as to further steps. The First presidency set the agenda, brought G-13 forward, and there was an attempt to suspend the rules and bring forward G-12, the attempt failed, G-13 was passed, removing the others from the agenda. However it was amended to include language about studding the effects of passing resolutions for or against, and to look for ways to reach compromise and understanding that can protect unity and stay with mission.
In 2005 we had a special conference to sustain a new Prophet President, which postponed the next main conference to 2007, and led to the start of the 3 year cycle between conferences. In 2007 no motions were brought forward on the topic, just the reports from committees…
2010 world Conference is less than a year away, all legislation from the field must be submitted by 11 December. Five resolutions have all ready been approved by mission centers and “posted” but not on the World Church Website. All five deal with the issue of homosexuality. They have chosen at this time not to place the legislation on the website as it may harm the church in some areas, as they deal with topics which are either not talked about or are illegal to talk about in some jurisdictions. The statement (it may change as time goes on) is located here. G-1 “marriage couple” and G-2 “Priesthood authorized to officiate at same-sex marriages where legal” were published in the October Herald. G-3 “Request for periodically updated information”, G-4 “Legal marriage and the Sacrament of Marriage”, and G-5 “Policy on Priesthood” will probably be found in November’s. They can also be found here. G-1 seeks to make previous world conference resolutions inclusive of same and non same sex couples by replacing “husband and wife” with “marriage couple.” G-2, express to the First Presidency that the World conference that Community of Christ priesthood should be allowed to officiate the sacrament of marriage for same sex couples where such are legally recognized, G-3 that the First Presidency annually provide information to the church regarding homosexuality conversations. (though homosexuality is only mentioned in the whereas and not the resolves…), G- 4 states the Conference senses where it is legal the priesthood should perform the sacrament of marriage for all seeking to enter into a “sacred covenant before God in a long term monogamous committed relationship” would give the first presidency the authority to make editorial changes to world conference resolution on marriage 1182, and the Handbook for Church Administrators to make them inclusive, provide interpretive comment in handbook to understand Doctrine and Covenants sections 17, 49, and 111 in regards to this actions. G-5 affirms that the fundamental requirement to be called to priesthood office (ordained ministry) is “called by one having appropriate administrative authority and approved by the sustaining vote of the proper jurisdictional conference…” requests that the October 2002 statement of the World Church Leadership Council be resided by the World Church Leadership Council, and the 1982 statement by the Standing High Council be rescinded by the Standing High Council, calls for LGBT members be eligible for and be called through the same process as anyone else, encourages all jurisdictions to welcome LGBT members as priesthood members when appropriate calls are approved through normal and administrative and legislative channels, does not seek to mandate calls where cultural understanding inhibit or law prohibits homosexuals from full participation.
The Spirit of these five resolutions I am for. I believe in the worth of all, that all are called, some to ordained ministry. I have known amazing ministers who are homosexual and who are heterosexual, and I have seen that ministry at times negatively impacted by church policy. I also am aware that we are a global church, expressed in lands where homosexuality is illegal, not understood, not spoken about. I don’t know as a global church the best way to recognize God’s calling of individuals and the worth of all. If these resolutions were to pass, would it place members lives in danger in some locals of the world? Would it make it harder in those locals for us to share the Peace of Christ? But by not changing policy to truly reflect the values of the worth of all, the calling of all, some to ordained ministry, do we not do the same in other areas of the world, such as those where I have spent most of my life? One of my best friends is homosexual, he received a call a few years back, but as he is not planning to live life alone without companionship was unable to be ordained due to church policy. God called, but policy stands in the way. Yet he serves as a minister, is employed as a minister by the church… I know of a minister who is amazing, who is in a long term relationship, who has provided more ministry to me even though he had his priesthood authority silenced, than some other ordained active ministers in the same area. There is no denying to be that God has called them, that they have much to offer, yet our policy puts blocks in their ability to fully embrace their calling, and wounds them in ways.
In many ways my desire is that we remove the policies of exclusiveness without replacing them. That is, have nothing forbidding and also nothing dictating. To allow us to be open and inclusive and at the same time not have a document in place which could be used to persecute members of the church in areas where homosexuality is not talked about or such is illegal… I wonder about these resolutions, and see aspects which might cause hiccups, might even lead to being ruled out of order depending on how certain phrases are read, though they tried to use words to prevent such from happening… I hope we spend time in neglectful and prayerful conversation. Seeking to find the best way forward in embracing our mission and core values.
I wonder also about not posting them online. The reasoning for it, makes sense and yet… why in the past were we not sensitive to our global family of sisters and brothers, and now are? Does not publishing them online but rather leaving it up to mission center presidents to distribute them as they see fit and printing them in the Herald disenfranchise some of our members who’s mission center presidents choose not to distribute them in ways which they can easily see them, and who do not have access to the Herald? Is it possible some delegates will not be able to truly be aware of those who they have been elected or selected to represent since those members know not the resolutions and have not discussed the resolutions in any way or form with them? Could some of them arrive in the US next year as delegates having never seen the resolutions until they arrived? How do other churches with global presence engage in such conversations, are there others who seek to be reflective of the various cultures,a s we have been called to do and are trying to do, or do they present it all regardless of how some areas might be impacted? or….
Peace,
Lyle II
— Lyle II