ELCA Churchwide Assembly - Live thread

8/8/05 | aberaussie

[aberaussie]

The Churwide Assembly starts today! My son and I will drive down to the hotel this afternoon to serve as general volunteers and as volunteers for Word Alone. I hope to blog regularly as well as post on FR. I know there will be at least one other Freeper there...anyone else?

We'll keep you posted!

[hinckley buzzard]

For additional real-time postings, go to http://www.alpb.org and click on the Lutheran Forum. Very useful observations by insiders.

[lightman]

The opening skirmish of orthodoxy vs. homosexualist took place tonight over the Rules of Procedure. Orthodox activists sought to "raise the bar" for all votes regarding sexuality matters to a 2/3 majority; while the homosexualists sought to keep the bar at Robert's Rules 50% plus one vote.

The following is a partial report on the proceedings from ELCA Communications officer Mim Woolbert through a Luthelink talk group "2005 CWA IN ORLANDO":

Adopting the rules and procedures:

Votes on rules of organization and procedure require two-thirds vote for
passage.
Votes to amend a rule require a majority for passage.
If a proposed rule is not adopted, the ELCA governing document indicate
that subject will be governed by Roberts Rules of Order.

Secretary Almen read the motion to adopt the rules, etc.

The chair invited anyone who wished to remove from en bloc any specific
rules they would like to have discussed, added or amended. A number of
people at microphones.

Task force recommendations
Hearings
Addendum to the rules of procedure - one particular paragraph
Amendment to change rule on process of adopting rules
Amendment to the rules in Section 10

Vote on the en bloc section of rules, excluding the above listed items
(needed 2/3 to adopt) passed 905 to 57.

------

Question about how one abstains and have it recorded; there is no way to
register an abstention on the voting machine. (Tell the secretary's
deputy was the answer.)

Questions about referral to Reference and Counsel led Bishop Hanson to say
he intended to appoint an ad hoc committee to deal with any amendments or
proposals related to the three recommendations on the human sexuality
issues. He will announce members later.

------

Proposed amendment to the rules
Require 2/3 vote to amend rules or to bring a substitute motion to
make
it consistent with adoption and avoid end runs. Opposition because the
present arrangement is according to Roberts Rules which has served well
for
a lolng time. One person proposed having a simple majority for both the
main motion and proposed amendments. Amendmet defeated 510-461.

------

Section 10 - paragraph by paragraph

P.12, pp. 2 - deleting the language referring to predecessor body human
sexuality statements. Former LCA Bishop Crumley spoke against amendment
because he felt documents passed along by the predecessor bodies ought to
be kept until such time as the ELCA does a new thing to replace them.
Others spoke about retaining historical documents without giving them
status as ruling documents. Amendment failed 363-618

Amend all the paragraphs to insert "or amendment or substitute motion" to
require 2/3 to pass related to task force reports. Same arguments as
above
although this amendment would apply only to the amendments to resolutions
related to the task force. Amendment adopted - 505-478

Now paragraph 2 is amended, now voting on the paragraph as amended:
566-411, the rule fails. That paragraph has not been adopted.

------

Much confusion regarding loss of that paragraph. If the other suggested
rules for the human sexuality discussion also fail, Roberts Rules would
prevail.

Miriam L. Woolbert
ELCA Department for Communication
from the 2005 Churchwide Assembly in Orlando

[lightman]

"The rest of the story" on the Rules of Procedure skirmish:

Still talking about the same subject, there would have to be a motion to reconsider, brought by someone who voted on the side that prevailed (the "nos"). Clarification after clarification called for ...

Other paragraphs to be addressed, and the hour is late. Other options
(reconsider, rescind, etc.) were described by the bishop.

Motion to reconsider was challenged by a young woman from Nebraska, who was encouraged to have a conversation with the parliamentarian, because Bishop Hanson thinks the parliamentarian may have met his match in her ... 8^)

Motion to reconsider passed 666-322.

Rule as amended under discussion once again, one hour after plenary session was supposed to be finished failed 630-355 after prayer led by the Rev. Charles Mays.

Miriam L. Woolbert
ELCA Department for Communication
from the 2005 Churchwide Assembly in Orlando

[lightman]

And still more on the Rules of Procedure:

Discussion seems to center (again) on half vs. two-thirds votes. Top left
of page 13 in Section 10; the amendment is to strike the two-thirds
requirement - defeated 309-668. The rule as originally proposed passed
656-320 without my ever discovering what its subject was.

------

The next paragraph - paragraph 4 - amendment proposed to delete. I think
this would limit the two-thirds requirement for any non-constitutional
chane proposals coming out of the Church Council. Amendment to strike the
paragraph failed 355-631.

Paragraph 4 failed 646-333 (required two-thirds)

(It's almost 11:00 and they're tired and calling the question almost as
soon as the issue comes up - moving fast ... 8^) )

------

Paragraph 5 - motion to amend by deleting the paragraph to keep control
of
rosters in synods (I suppose as opposed to the secretary of the church
keeping the official rosters) failed 333-644.

All previous questions called - Paragraph 5 failed 649-337

------

Paragraph 6 - motion to amend by striking failed 386-601.
Vote on Paragraph 6 failed 616-364
\
------

Part 18, page 20, section 1 -

Motion to amend by adding "registered visitors" after "official visitors"
to the list of types of people attending the assembly and able to speak at
hearings on issues.

Secretary Almen was asked to explain the rationale for the existing
limits.
He smiled, which usually doesn't happen until the last day of the
assembly,
which provided a light note in this late night. He explained that
hearings
in previous assemblies had allowed visitors to speak and voting members
had
expressed some problems with being unable to ask their questions and make
their comments because so much of the discussion time was taken up by
visitors and official representaties.

Rule passed 897-72.
-----

Agenda, page 3, paragraph 3 - language relative to departing from the
agenda.

Motion to amend to add that chair may call any non-actionable items at the
chair's discretion - things like reports, greetings, etc. Objections were
that the chairs hands would be tied. One impassioned speech about the
assembly always being able to appeal, and about trusting the leadership
elected by the body.

Amendment failed 105-869
Paragraph 3 passed 902-67
-----

Motion for the order of adoption of business

Plenary session 2 will begin at 8:45 (30 minutes later than scheduled,
which got applause ... )

Amendment that all quasi-committee-of-the-whole sessions where the
sexuality issues are discussed as well as the session when the votes take
place be closed to all but voting members and advisors.

Bishop Hanson asked the house to determine whether the proposed amendment
was germane and it failed 784-195

924-45 agenda was adopted.
------
Co-chairs of the local arrangements committee were introduced and
applauded.


Miriam L. Woolbert ELCA Department for Communication from the 2005
Churchwide Assembly in Orlando

[lightman]

A summary a clear analysis of the session from the ALPB Forum moderator Richard Johnson, STS:

The assembly was formally opened at a Monday evening session. There were rainbow-sash-bedecked folks from the Goodsoil group standing around the periphery, apparently in silent witness, though the size of the assembly hall and the small number of persons involved (perhaps two dozen) diluted that witness considerably (I was sitting at one end of the hall, and could barely see the dozen or so standing at the other end.) After greetings from the host Florida Bahamas Synod bishop, Presiding Bishop Hanson led the voting members through a sometimes humorous test of the electronic voting system. (One sample question: What do you intend to do while you’re in Orlando? Some answers: Attend Disneyworld, attend the Space Center, I’m not telling, I thought this WAS Disneyworld.)

This session was scheduled to last 90 minutes, but as we previously reported, the procedural recommendations became ground zero in the sexuality debate, and the plenary lasted for four hours. The process was to offer the opportunity for voting members to ask that individual rules be pulled out of the general motion to approve the rules. Several made such requests (mainly rainbow sash people). The “non-controversial” rules were then approved, and debate began on the “controversies”—primarily the question of whether a 2/3 vote would be required “to adopt recommendations from a task force that would establish for this church a new practice or policy that is contrary to a social statement of this church on the subject of the policy or social statements received from the immediate predecessor church bodies of this church that have not been replaced or superseded by social statements or decisions of this church.
Cut to the chase: the end result was that the 2/3 vote requirement was defeated. Bishop Boerger of the Southwestern Washington Synod thought he was being helpful by moving that the 2/3 requirement apply to any amendments or substitutions for task force recommendations. His motion only required a simple majority, and it was narrowly carried. But extending the 2/3 requirement seems to have frightened off a number of folks, and when it was time to vote on the proposed rule as amended, it only got 58%. There was great confusion in the house as to what was being voted on at any particular moment, and this led to a motion to reconsider—which was approved. There followed several minutes of very confused conversation (I’m not sure it rose to the level of debate). The motion to adopt the 2/3 vote then was again defeated, garnering 64% of the votes but needing 2/3. Perhaps out of frustration, a voting member then moved to adjourn, though there were several procedural issues yet to resolve (it was now after 10:30 p.m. in a session that was supposed to go only until 9:00). The motion to adjourn was defeated.

The next proposal was to eliminate the proposed 2/3 requirement for task force reports which would change policies adopted by the Church Council (read “Vision and Expectations” and “Definitions and Discipline”). There was only brief debate on this one, and people seemed finally to have figured out what they were voting on. It was very narrowly adopted (67%).

Next a motion was made to strike a paragraph requiring 2/3 majority on any recommendation for which the Church Council has recommended that 2/3 majority be required. (I’m not making this up.) The amendment was defeated, and then the paragraph as originally proposed was very narrowly defeated (66%--just shy of the required 2/3).

Next came a motion to delete a 2/3 vote requirement for task force recommendations which would supersede the authority of synods in overseeing the rostering process for ordained and lay professional ministries. Again the motion to delete was defeated, and again the rule itself was defeated by a similarly narrow vote.

Finally a motion to delete a proposal to require 2/3 on resolutions giving advice to congregations on matters regarding social statements (an odd rule, when you think of it, since there are no social statements on the agenda). It had symbolic value, however, and the assembly was on a roll. The motion to delete was defeated, but then the proposed rule failed to get a 2/3 vote.

However you cut it, it is clear that the 2/3 requirement didn’t consistently have the support of 2/3 of the voting members—the votes to require such a majority hovering just around 2/3, but usually on the short side. Score one for the rainbow sashes.

But it may be a hollow victory for those who want to adopt Recommendation 3, or some other yet unseen proposal to allow for gay and lesbian pastors in committed relationships. The side advocating requirement of a 2/3 vote got between 58% and 64% on these various procedural efforts. Assuming that those wanting a 2/3 vote on these matters will almost all oppose changing the church’s policies on ordination sexually active gays and lesbians, any such proposal would easily be dead in the water. Indeed, it may be a hidden boon to opponents of the sexuality recommendations. If the 2/3 requirement had prevailed, it would have been easy for the revisionists to say, “Yes, but the 2/3 rule was unfair.” But if the action only requires a simple majority and it still is defeated, any aroma of unfairness is gone. It seems that Solid Rock should be encouraged by these voting results.

A few other rules issues occasioned some debate, but nothing of much significance, and by 11:15 the chair had taken to moving some procedural motions along with voice votes. At 11:25, the Rules of Order were adopted.

Then came a surprise. The final motion was adoption of the agenda as proposed. A voting member moved that the sessions dealing with the sexuality recommendations be closed to all but voting members and advisors. The maker of the motion made clear that he did not desire the sessions to be “secret”—presumably they would still be broadcast on closed circuit television. Bishop Hanson tested the house as to whether they thought it germane to the question of the motion to adopt the agenda, and the assembly said “no.” (In our view he should have just so ruled himself, but hey, it was almost midnight and everyone was tired.)

Secretary Almen got applause when he announced that the Tuesday morning session would begin at 8:45—a 30-minute reprieve, based, one assumes, on the late night Monday.

[stocksthatgoup]

ALFC - Do they have a duck as their mascot?

[aberaussie]

I am still under the impression that any change to the constitution or bylaws will require a 2/3; I don't think that was changed tonight, but it went so long and I am so tired that my mind is not terribly clear.

The goodsoil folks were handing out (pushing on people) their little rainbow sashes as people went into the assembly....I just said no. ;-)

They were very well prepared with their amendments, though. They knew just what they wanted to do.

[sockmonkey]

For additional real-time postings, go to http://www.alpb.org and click on the Lutheran Forum. Very useful observations by insiders.

Thanks for the link. This whole thing is like watching a train wreck. Methinks if I were still Lutheran, I would want to give Bishop Hanson a whack up aside the head-taking swipes at the conservatives during his sermon is pretty low, IMHO.

And changing the creed to omit God the Father, what's up with that? (screams, shakes head, and puts hands over eyes)

[aberaussie]

I am looking at my worship booklet from last night and the first line of the creed starts "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen." So Father was not left out of the creed. I think what people are talking about is something that the bishop said early in the service about our creator God and his son Jesus Christ. I did notice there that Father was left out.

[lightman]

From ALPB postings and a private email, the orthodox were distressed by the PB emasculating God the Father when referencing the Creed in his Sermon; but they were equally distressed by the statement in Sermon "we are not here to take back the church" which they construed as an inappropriate swipe at Solid Rock.

[Honorary Serb]

The rainbow-sashed gaysbians and gaysbian enablers, as well as the feminazis with their Deconstructing Worship botch-job, are in Orlando to take over the ELCA, and to strangle everything orthodox within it!!!! How dare that false "bishop" say that "we are not there to take back the church", as he also, in accord with his feminazi allies, omits the word Father from his sermon!!

"Voting members" should just vote NO on EVERY proposal, without exception!!!! However, if they are able to get some GOOD resolutons onto the Assembly docket, such as Hanson's resignation, then they can of course vote yes!!

Lord save your people and bless your inheritance....

[wallcrawlr]

Thanks so much for the updates

[lightman]

Morning update, official summary of the Rules of Procedure votes:

From today's docket here is the official text of what passed last night:

A two-thirds majority vote of the voting members of the Churchwide Assembly present and voting shall be required to adopt recommendations from a task force report or amendments or substitute motions related to them that require amendment of a constitution or bylaw provision for implementation.

A two-thirds majority vote of the voting members of the Churchwide Assembly present and voting shall be required to adopt recommendations from a task force report or amendments or substitute motions related to them that would establish for this church a new practice or policy that is contrary to an existing policy that has been adopted by the Church Council upon recommendation of a board or committee, as authorized by the constitution or bylawas of this church. Already the homosexualists are crying foul about the second action which they perceive (rightly, Thanks be to God!) as an attempt to manipulate the outcome of the other votes.

[wallcrawlr]

tell those rainbow sash wearers that Gods people will not be intimidated

[lightman]

From what I have read, the Solid Rock folks have been handing out 4-inch diameter Luther Rose stickers.

"Choose ye this day whom you will serve!"

[aberaussie]

The sashes are tacky by the way...I'm glad I don't have to wear one.
Sorry. I'm getting tired of looking at them. Long week I'm afraid.

[Honorary Serb]

A two-thirds majority vote...

There is A LOT of confusion on orthodox Lutheran websites as to whether and where the "2/3 rule" applies, and what passed or didn't pass in yesterday's late-night and confusing session. I can't keep things straight late at night, either, especially if I have been suffering a sleep deficit. In fact, I am well-known for moving to adjourn under such circumstances, as I believe someone tried to do at the CWA.

So. lightman, is that statement in your previous post the true, official version?

By the way, aberaussie, rainbow sashes or stoles are ALWAYS tacky. And waving a rainbow flag in font of me is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. That is because the rainbow flag is the flag of censorship, meaning that nothing deemed "offensive" to gaysbians and feminazis is allowed in a church or other building on which the rainbow flag is displayed.

The rainbow symbol is of course also stolen from orthodox Christians, because of the rainbow displayed by God for Noah. Whenever we see the beautiful, lovely rainbow in the sky, or in a water fountain, we are to remember that God keeps his word. How dare these miscreants turn something so beautiful into someting so ugly!!!!

[lightman]

The bold parts of my post # 34 were taken from the Lutherlink posting by a staffer from the ELCA Department of Communications, which was a cut and paste from Assembly documents distributed and digitally available today. That's as official as I can get.

I'm right with you with the co-opting of the rainbow. When those who are unrepentent of their sin wave the rainbow as though to say "God promissed He wouldn't destroy us" it is indeed like waving a red flag at a bull, only it is like thumbing one's nose at Almighty God. Just read further in Genesis to find out how He dealt with the Sodomites--it wasn't a flood, but it was total destruction. Fools!

[lightman]

From http://www.sldrck.org/ Scroll down the page for daily Assembly News.

Solid Rock News
Monday August 8


The first plenary session of the ELCA Churchwide Assembly ended at 11:25 pm ET tonight. It had been scheduled to end at 9:00 pm but lengthy political maneuverings dealing with the Rules of Procedure resulted in some successes and some setbacks for both sides.

The folks in rainbow stoles were well organized, well scripted, and received significant assistance from two bishops, one of them being the presiding bishop. Much of the debate was seriously confusing, so much so that a vote was actually reconsidered right after it had been defeated! Without the assembly being aware of the ramifications of its votes, the opposition was successful in making it harder to offer substitute motions and amendments to the Church Council Recommendations. No matter. Two-thirds are still required for the passage of Recommendation Three. But the most important outcome of the evening was that a reaction to such political maneuverings became very apparent in the votes that were cast (no matter how they turned out parliamentarily). Time and again it became apparent by virtue of the percentage margins that the votes do not now exist to change the current policies on sexuality and ordination.

The vote on sexuality is scheduled for Friday morning. It will be a long week until then. Please be constant in prayer and trust the Holy Spirit to guide and direct the voting members through what promises to be a very trying assembly.

Rev. Roy A. Harrisville III Executive Director