I love reading denominational periodicals, though it has to be said that some are better than others. This week I got my hands on one that I always find interesting, and though I was disappointed to discover I was reading a July edition; I still found myself enjoying many different articles
In this particular one, the question arises at a meeting of the Synod as to the
party denominational position on homosexuality, last affirmed in 2002. The conclusion was that, “When delegates voted, the majority agreed to appoint a study committee that will examine how to loving communicate (not re-examine) the [denomination’s] position on homosexuality.”
In other words, they didn’t feel it was necessary to reopen the issue, but felt they instead needed to better communicate the policy and position they already have.
Okay; let’s give that the benefit of the doubt. Here’s the focus of my writing today: The article concluded with a sentence that is probably quite normative in reporting of these types of meetings but which I found rather damning —
The study committee will report to Synod in 2016.
2016? Really? Seriously? In three years? On an issue where the landscape is rapidly changing? When churches are bleeding a generation of members over the handling of this issue?
Sorry, but three months would have been more appropriate.
We touched on something similar here almost exactly a year ago. It was a response to a comment made during the U.S. election coverage: “The Republican Party needs to realize that the country is changing faster than they are.”
When you’re in a sprint to keep up with where the culture is heading, you don’t take a three lap water break, or take three years to produce a study on one of the toughest issues the church has faced in much time. Your study is out of date by the time it’s released.
Oddly enough, the article was titled, “A Generation’s Defining Struggle.” Too bad the people in the story it covered didn’t have the same sense of urgency.