ELCA Monday Evening Plenary: Simple majority upheld

American Lutheran Publicity Bureau ^ | 17 August AD 2009 | Richard O. Johnson

[lightman]

Plenary Session 1 Monday night

The usual opening stuff took place, with the announcement that there are 1045 voting members. 1025 had been registered by 6 p.m. A quorum is present.

Bishops of the host synods were introduced. The synods have given 66 trees to Tree Trust to be planted in the twin cities, one in honor of each of the 65 synods and the 66th in honor of the whole ELCA. Several minutes went by as the house learned how to use the voting machines (which revealed that just under 50% of the voting members are at their first churchwide assembly).

Bp. Hanson went over some salient points of the rules of order, particularly those having to do with how to address the assembly, etc. He finally got to the question of what margin would be required to approve changes in ministry policy, noting that the Church Council had decided not to require 2/3. He also noted that the Church Council did not frame a special rule that would require that, on these four proposed resolutions, consideration of the second and subsequent resolutions would be dependent on approval of the preceding resolution. In other words, under the rules as currently drafted, when it comes to those four proposed resolutions, each will be considered irrespective of action of the previous one. This is NOT what was recommended by the Sexuality Task Force.

This explanation of the proposed rules went on almost interminably (well over 30 minutes), and it is hard to know where the tipping point is between “making sure first timers don’t feel marginalized” and “marginalizing first timers by the sheer weight of the explanations.”

He clarified the majority required for adopting rules, which actually muddies things considerably. If an amendment to the proposed rules is proposed, it takes a simple majority to approve it. But then it takes a second 2/3 vote to adopt it as a rule. If, however, a new rule is proposed (i.e., not an amendment to a proposed rule), it will require only a single vote of 2/3. Like I said, muddy.

Secretary Swartling moved adoption of the rules, and Bp. Hanson then called for prayer before the discussion begins.

John Gates, FL/Bahamas Synod, raised a point of order regarding the process that has been outlined. He noted that in previous assemblies, the rules have been laid out, amendments have been adopted, and then the whole document has been adopted. Bp. Hanson disagreed; his recollection is that what he outlined has always been the practice, and this was supported by Secretary Swartling.

Bp. Greg Pyle gave notice that he wished to add a rule that would require a 2/3 vote on all matters relating to ministry policies. Rev. Steven Frock (Western Iowa) gave notice he intended to propose an amendment that would apparently be similar to what Pyle requested. Pr. Heidi Punt (Central/So. IL) asked for clarification about the process for considering the four resolutions. Bp. Hanson responded, reiterating his earlier explanation. George Watson, SE Michigan Synod gave notice that he would propose an amendment preventing cutting off of debate until at least three speakers on each side had been heard. John Emery, E-Central WI, gave notice he would propose reducing length of speeches from three minutes to two. Marshall Hahn (NE Iowa) will proposed rule that the four resolutions on ministry be considered sequentially only if the prior one has been approved. Paul Bedford, Great Milwaukee, requested that the two paragraphs on social statements and recommendations pertaining thereto be considered separately.

These rules were then removed from en bloc consideration, and what was left (i.e., those about which no amendments are to be presented) was voted upon. En bloc motion adopted, 976-26.

After a recess to enable Bp. Hanson (PB hereafter) to have a look at the specific proposed amendments, the assembly reconvened. PB called on George Watson, who moved that debate not be cut off before at least three speakers on each side had been heard. Motion lost narrowly, with 64% (required 2/3).

PB called on John Emery, who moved to limit speeches to two minutes (rather than three). Al Quie, who is a former governor of MN, spoke against. Stephen Frock brought the house down by opposing motion on grounds it discriminates against clergy. Motion defeated, 390-635. Motion to adopt paragraph itself on speeches (both amendments having been defeated), was approved, 943-74.

PB called on Bp. Pyle, who moved that a 2/3 vote be required to adopt recommendations, resolutions, memorials or any other motions (including motions to amend) originating from or relating to report on recommendations on ministry policies. This, of course, is the heart of the first line of defense against allowing for partnered gay clergy. Pyle argued that we are standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before us for centuries, and we must take the long view of things. We have been talking about this issue for 20 years, but those years pale against the 2000 years before. This may be the year we decide to change our rules; but requiring a 2/3 vote acknowledges the “long view” and prevents us from making a precipitous change by a small majority. Ronald Pittman (Oregon) argued against, likening it to changing the rules at the end of the game. David Laiden (St. Paul) supported it, saying we are called to seek the unity and well-being of the whole church; the 2/3 requirement supports this. If the Holy Spirit is in fact doing a new thing, the 2/3 majority should be easy to obtain. Bp. Rimbo (NY Metro), clad in his episcopal purple, spoke against. John Gates, FL/Bahamas, opposed; the task force itself suggests we have no unity on this issue; in that situation, a 2/3 vote should be required to make such a potentially divisive change. Susan Hernandez (Rocky Mountain) opposed; only three kinds of things require 2/3, and to impose that on this action is unreasonable. Pr. Judy McKee (Lower Susquehana), in favor: this would change practice of the church for 2000 years. Jay McDivitt (Rocky Mtn) against, pointing out that majority of synod assemblies have opposed it; reality is that we are going to have pastors in same-sex relationships and we should get over it. Bp. ?? (one of the Dakotas) spoke in favor, noting that 2/3 vote is required for congregations to call a pastor. Larry Christensen, SE Iowa, against; will it build unity if it fails because it only gets 65%? What will our ecumenical partners think if we change the rules any time we choose? Pr. Ryan Mills (N Tex, N. La) in favor; we are called to speak “with one voice” and we must not make a decision by a bare majority. Jason Glombicki (Metro Chicago) against; allowing 1/3 to govern will alienate much of the church. Bp. Skrenes (N. Great Lakes) in favor; overwhelming consensus is impossible, but a 2/3 majority will allow us to say that change has significant support. Pr. Ann Tiemeyer, Metro NY; task tonight is not to deal with ministry policy, but to stand for good order, which requires us to stick with a majority vote. Pr. Terri Stagner-Collier (Southeastern) cited Michael Root’s referring to this as a theological issue, not a political issue; our decision here has implications far beyond just the ELCA, and needs to be made overwhelmingly. Pr. Jennifer Czarnota (E Central WI) against, because majority of synods expressing opinions have opposed 2/3 vote. Johannes Olsen, Upstate NY, in favor; a change this grave requires a larger majority.

Fernando Mercado asked question about procedure; PB replied he is treating this as a “new rule” that requires 2/3 vote to approve.

Pr. Mark Lepper, Minneapolis, against, again citing the synods expressing their opinions. Pr. Rich Fitser, in favor; is good Christian witness for us to speak as broadly as we can. AIM Karen Matthias-Long, NE Penn; a simple majority is a majority and allows the majority to decide; 2/3 allows minority to decide.

Kirsten Nelson Roenfeldt, Rocky Mtn., asked what she described as a question: has V&E and related matters all required 2/3 or simple majority? Of course she knew the answer. Classic example of debate disquised as question.

Pr. Scott Bryte, SW Penn, in favor. We need to be gracious to the Body of Christ. What is most loving the church as a body? This action would be divisive; we should require 2/3. Rosaline Moldwin against, blah blah blah same old same old. OK from now on I’m only writing if they say anything new. (And she became the first person on whom time was called!) Several more speakers saying not much new, and wandering all over the barnyard. At times it seemed that they were debating, not the rules, but the substance of the ministry proposals. OK, Bp. Wohlrabe said something new. Pointed out that V&E, which the opponents of the 2/3 rule keep saying was adopted by simple majority, “did not come out of the blue.” That document expressed the long consensus of predecessor bodies. At last Bp. Hanson made the observation that we must stay focused on the RULE question, not the content of the ministry proposals. Good for him. After several more speakers, someone at last moved the previous question. Approved, 906 to 100.

Following prayer, the assembly voted on the motion to require 2/3: defeated, 436-584. Hard to know what to make of that. It certainly is not what CORE and other traditionalists wanted, but on the other hand there may be enough who opposed the proposed policy change but also feel qualms about the 2/3 requirement that this could suggest difficulty getting even a simple majority on the ministry policies. We’ll have to wait and see.

Pr. Steven Frock was recognized, apparently because his proposed amendment seems to be somewhat confused. As he explained it, he seems to want any motions relative to social statements require 2/3. It isn’t clear just what he’s after here—perhaps the implementing resolutions for the social policy statement? Here is where the PB is pretty good. He takes time now to consult with the secretary, to see “if what you have presented will actually accomplish what you want to do.” Hanson is good at trying to help voting members get what they want in proper form to be discussed. In this instance, I’m not sure it’s working.

Now it appears that he is arguing that ANY policy changes about ANY subject should require 2/3. “This is difficult to navigate,” said the PB, and he’s right about that. A voting member objected to consideration of this motion. This was a new one on me; going to have to bone up on just what that means. PB says question to the assembly is “should this question be considered?” If 2/3 vote no, then it is not considered. “This is fairly rare in churchwide assemblies,” PB quipped. Confusing all around, but he called for the vote, and the answer is: ¾ voted “no,” so the Frock motion died.

Pr. Marshall Hahn (Iowa) moved that the assembly follow the process recommended by the task force on sexuality to deal with the four resolutions (i.e., to vote on them one at a time, with the assembly preceding to the next only after each is adopted). David Lillehaug, Minneapolis, opposed; we shouldn’t bind ourselves on Monday night to actions we might want to take on Friday. Pr. Cori Johnson, N Great Lakes (who was one of the three dissenters on the task force): In this matter, the task force was wise, and their recommendation on process should be followed. Cheryl Stuart, Fla-Bah; Church Council seeking clarity presented the current process to us; it is the clearest way to discuss these things. Pr Randy Baldwin, NE Iowa in favor. This is the process the task force recommended, and the discussion across the church has assumed this process; to change it now will not be understood. Previous question moved, and adopted. Motion to return to the original task force procedural recommendation defeated on a vote of 414 to 592.

Now the final vote was taken on the section 10 of the proposed rules (the section discussed for the past two hours). Section approved, 861-137.

With some final announcements, the assembly was in recess.

[lightman]

Luther's Catechetical question is appropriate here:

Q. What does this mean?

A. We should fear, trust, and love God above all things--even a simple majority of an assembly made up of 2/3 laity seeking to overthrow Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and the orthodox teaching of global and historical Christianity.

[lightman]

Lutheran (ELCA) Ping!

Be sure also to read:

Pastoral Guidance Concerning Same-Sex Unions

Delight, Design and Destiny: Toward a Doxological Ethics of Sexuality

Statement by Three Dissenting Members of the ELCA Task Force on Human Sexuality

It’s Not About Homosexuality--Not Really

I think I want a Divorce

“Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust”: A Critique by Carl E. Braaten

When There Are No Biblical or Theological Grounds to Change, Don’t

WordAlone Network responds to ELCA human sexuality proposals

Lutheran CORE leaders urge rejection of ELCA task force recommendations

[aliquando]

As expected. The Church will be divided. This is the equivalency of selling indulgences. We will have to go Martin Luther on them and leave.

[lightman]

No, we will need to go Martin Luther on them and threaten to stay until we are handed a Bull of Excommunication.

Then we’ll have a bonfire.

[fwdude]

The fact that this abomination is even “up for a vote” simply means that it will pass. What a farce to even vote when it’s clear that the overwhelming majority are in the bag for the fags.

[April Lexington]

I wish they’d drop the word Lutheran from their name. I think the Church of Lost Marxist Souls or something like that would be more appropriate. If Luther were still alive, he’d have a hart attack!

[SmithL]

This is an indulgence for which I cannot stand!

[aliquando]

They should just go Unitarian..... If it feels good, do it. Hippie Church!

[April Lexington]

I have yet to go to an ELCA service and hear the “J” word during a sermon... That’s Jesus, by the way...

[bjorn14]

Sad but true...Fortunately the congregation I belong to really emphasises the E in ECLA and the “J” word. If this passes we will begin the conversation to leave the ECLA.

[fatboy]

lightman, your bondfire idea may make you feel good but will do nothing of value as the bulk of the ELCA is over the edge liberal. Most of them have to know that this movement away from the clear teaching of the Bible will cause a major number change, but they don’t care. This is simply a continuation of a very long slide away from the teaching of Luther and the Bible.

At some point, and I don’t know where that point is, conservative believers in the Jesus who are members of ELCA churches will set aside generations of family tradition and leave. Until that happens, things will get worse and worse.

I remember our pastor telling us from the pulpit that when deciding to become a pastor, he wanted to do something to help people. Noble enough, but he also considered being a police officer or social worker. The decision to become a pastor was made because his father was a pastor. No mention about being called to the ministry or serving the Lord, no it was a career decision. And that is the problem, many are in the ministry in the ELCA for career considerations, not because they were called to serve.

Personally, we left our ELCA church in 1989 because we couldn’t bear the path it was taking. But we didn’t have family ties to the ELCA. It was hard enough just leaving friends and position but it was worth it. Our Lutheran church became simply a religious social club where no one took the Bible seriously anymore and Jesus was not a consideration. Compared to today, 1989 was the “good old days”. I feel sorry for those in the breach today, but God will bless those who place Him and His Son Jesus as their number one priority in their lives. Once it is realized that the church is dead and no longer feeding the flock, there is only one course of action and that is to leave. We are to leave sin behind, let the sinners have their party.

[lightman]

many are in the ministry in the ELCA for career considerations, not because they were called to serve.

You point to a problem endemic to ELCA Seminaries--and well beyond:

Seminary education in the 19th century was about pastoral formation, instilling the disciplines (including scholarship) required to be a servant of the Word. Then by the early 20th century there was a shift to mere theological education which still retained some elements of formation, but began to replace them with over intellectualizing--including an over-reliance on "higher criticism" of the Scriptures.

Now Seminaries have devolved into mere vocational training schools, which wouldn't be entirely bad if "vocation" were understood in the Roman Catholic sense, because then we would be back full circle to pastoral formation. But in modern parlance that has come to mean practicums and Clinical Pastoral Education...learn the externals without truly internalizing the disciplines.

[lightman]

The vapidity of modern Seminaries (and what they produce) was clearly evident in last night's plenary.

Presiding Bishop Hanson selected only Pastors Ordained less than 10 years to serve as the "Intercessors" for the Assembly.

That means that every prayer offered before critical votes will be spoken by someone who graduated from Seminary within the past decade.

The Intercessor before the vote on the 2/3 bar began his prayer addressed to "God" ("Father" has become the forbidden F-word in most ECLA institutions), made reference (of course) to "the leading of the spirit" (which I did not capitalize, because from the context I do not really know whether he meant the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity or just some Zeitgeist. And the prayer had something about the "gospel of Jesus"--but the relationship between God, Jesus, and the ill-defined spirit was never clarified.

In other words, it was a prayer that a 4th Arian would have been comfortable in offering.

And a prayer to which I could not in good conscience say "Amen."

[xone]

You know it is over don’t you?

[lightman]

Aye, to quote Luther, "this is most certainly true".

But in another sense, this is only just the beginning of a new chapter:

http://www.wordalone.org/pdf/what-to-do.pdf

[xone]

Interestingly under the Congregation and Pastor leave ELCA about the 2/3 requirements 90 days apart for former LCA congregations. Forgotten roots.

[lightman]

Same requirements as for relocation or for merger with another congregation. A higher bar than what was voted upon last night.

[xone]

A higher bar than what was voted upon last night.

Well why not? One is only ministry, while this is about $$$$.

[lightman]

Well why not? One is only ministry, while this is about $$$$.

Translation: Tetzel wins!

[aussiemom]

as today’s Oswald Chambers reminds us,

“What Jesus says is hard, it is only easy when it is heard by those who have His disposition.” http://www.myutmost.org/08/0818.html

As you said, perhaps those of us who continue to fight the same battle over and over again for the sake of family ties and tradition need to let go and let God do what he will with the ELCA. Perhaps we continue to enable their sin by engaging in discussion with them.

Thank you for this encouragement: “I feel sorry for those in the breach today, but God will bless those who place Him and His Son Jesus as their number one priority in their lives.”