Last Tuesday there was another meeting for voting members in my synod (Southwest MN). My regular life has gotten much busier in the meantime, which accounts for the delay here. As I mentioned, I can't promise dates for future posts, but I can say with reasonable confidence that they will be irregular (in bunches, that is).
One of our voting members is Linden Olson, who served on the Task Force writing the Genetics statement. He gave us an abbreviated version of the presentation he has been using to introduce the statement in talks. He did take questions; he said that in the earliest drafts there was much more of a focus on human experimentation/genetics, but the agriculture experts helped refocus that, making the point that genetic adjustments in agriculture can affect many more people in a very short period of time. I asked whether there was much difference between the original public draft statement on Genetics and the current version, and Linden and the bishop agreed that it was much shorter in the current version and that the structure of the document was different, but Linden did not think that anything important was changed content-wise, just that it was a better, more concise statement after the editing process. Something I meant to ask, but couldn't because of time pressure, was who the specific recommendations are for in this statement (apart from the recommendations on funding). It seemed to me that in many places the statement was trying to contextualize practices (using our own ethical vocabulary) which had already been tested and vetted in the context of a very mature regulatory structure (a friend of mine who has drafted guidelines for working with animals has told me as much). He did provide part of an answer to that in another question however, saying that while we in the USA operate under a firm regulatory structure, this does not hold for experimentation in other countries or for the use of the the products of US genetic research in other countries, which is a fair point.
Another item discussed was the LIFT Task Force recommendations. I'd mentioned previously (about a month ago) that I was interested in it but I couldn't find anything about it, and that the part of the ELCA website devoted to actions of the upcoming assembly did not provide a link. Well, there is a link now with links to all the relevant documents, and it seems like they are (contrary to my original assumption) making every effort to advertise their work. They have a blog, a facebook page, and even a twitter account. I think after the Genetics statement, I'll go straight to the LIFT Task Force recommendations, as they seem to be potentially the most important for the future of the ELCA. Word at the meeting was that the recommendations represent a radical shift in the orientation of the ELCA toward the support of congregations, which our Bishop sees as encouraging: he sees a deep mutual distrust between many congregations and the national church, which at least here has often been able to distract from the church's mission in this part of the state.
Also mentioned briefly was the fact that there will be discussion of a motion to rescind the 2009 Sexuality statement and associated resolutions at the CWA. Southwest MN was considered a likely place for such a resolution to arise (our Synod Assembly has not yet taken place), but another synod has put it on the agenda.
Everyone else at the meeting was going to be at Synod Assembly this coming weekend (I will be unable to attend), so I hope they will keep me updated on any new information.
