Replies

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social statements received from the immediate predecessor church bodies of this church that have not been replaced or superseded by social statements or decisions of this church.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.