Posted on 08/12/2005 8:40:56 PM PDT by lightman
Fascinating. Press briefings, of course, are all about spin, and I heard today’s events spun by Mark Hanson, and then by Jeff Johnson of Goodsoil. Hanson first.
The presiding bishop appeared before a full press room with Roy Riley, Chair of the Conference of Bishops, and Stan Olson, Executive of the Division for Ministry. Also present were Rebecca Anderson of Church and Society and Jim Childs of the task force. Bishop Hanson began by urging the press again to use a “wide angle lens”—pointing out some of the “non-sexuality” important things that were approved, such as the strategy for African American outreach. But he knew the issue on the minds of the press was what had just happened. He was appreciative, he said, of the respectful tone, both of the voting members and of the demonstrators who had stood in silent witness. A bit of a shift, of course, from his earlier words about being “disappointed” that they refused to follow the rules. Sources close to the bishop’s office told us “disappointed” and “respectful” aren’t exactly the right words to describe the bishop’s attitude toward Goodsoil; more like “livid.” Voting members may not have been aware of the heavy hotel security throughout the ballroom, nor of the uniformed Orlando police who were backstage, just waiting for a signal to enter and deal with the situation. To Bp. Hanson’s credit, he held things in check; everyone seems to agree he turned the situation around with his quip about being the father of six. But we understand he’s plenty ticked.
When we come to the substance of the actions, the ELCA leaders were—well, I guess circumspect is one word. Obfuscating might be another. If a congregation were to authorize same-sex blessings, they were asked, would it be subject to discipline? Well, Stan Olson said, that would be up to the synod bishop. (Odd response, we thought; can’t quite imagine what the charges would be.)
Do you think there will be pro-gay congregations, disappointed in the outcome, who will withdraw from the ELCA? Hanson: I’ve always assumed there would be disappointment on the part of some, but I’ve prayed this would not lead them to step back from the rest of the church. In the midst of our differences, we have returned daily to the unity given us in Christ [in worship]. I’m sure different feelings will be expressed, which is good, better that they be expressed.
One reporter said, “It seems to me this is a vote for the status quo, or, as one bishop put it, we’ve made the status quo more official. Bp. Hanson replied, “This church reaffirmed its current standards with regard to ordination standards. One CWA can only speak for itself in the time in which its gathered.”
How would you asses the meaning of recommendation 2? Hanson: “I think it reaffirmed guidance of 1993 bishops statement. I believe that is received as guidance for this church.” Well, duh!
Then a key question: Enforcement of these guidelines is not uniform now; will this action lead to greater uniformity. Bp. Riley replied, “Bishops are independent in style, but there is great collegiality within the Conference. We trust one another to act with integrity according to the various policies and constitutions of this church, and to act with pastoral eiscretion for the sake of mission. That is a style that has worked very well. There will continue to be significant disagreement among the bishops about this, but it hgas never prevented us from working together. I expect that will continue. When there are concerns about one practice here or there, we talk with one another and try to understand the differences.”
So there it is—and we think what that one bishop said is probably right, it makes the status quo more official. Some result from a long and costly study!
[Goodsoil Press Conference]
If the status quo is more official now, as one bishop put it, Goodsoil’s representatives Jeff Johnson and Emily Eastwood put the best construction on it, staking out a position that is both offended by the church’s action, and generally happy with it.
“The trajectory for change is clear,” Johnson said. At some point we’ll abolish this strategy of discrimination.” Indeed, the reason Recommendation 3 was defeated is that it was a flawed recommendation, lacking any integrity, opposed both by liberals and conservatives. Clearly the church did not take a step backward here, but upheld congregational and pastoral integrity. Same-sex blessings have not been banned.
Emily Eastwood added that the Hesse amendment was essentially a referendum on the status quo, and it was defeated—revealing that nobody is happy with the current policies.
Johnson continued: “If anyone thinks the issue is going away, they haven’t been paying attention.” Yet he’s concerned about the next steps of the task force in developing a social statement, because this is being done by the same people that proposed these flawed recommendations.
Or maybe not. Apparently Bishop Margaret Payne has resigned—whether as chair, or from the task force entirely is not clear to me. And the word is that there are others on the task force who have resigned, or are on the verge of resignation. So there may actually be some new faces working on the social statement. Is that a good thing? Obviously it depends on whose faces they are exactly.
Goodsoil’s news release was angry at the ELCA’s “breathtaking contradiction” in its action today, insisting that the church has “further institutionalized the oppression” of glbt people. Angry words, but the press conference—and even more some private conversations—suggest that Goodsoil isn’t all that upset by what happened today, that they feel they dodged a bullet.
No official comment from Solid Rock that we’ve heard, but Word Alone, one of the coalition of Solid Rock, issued a press release that was not happy. The action “okays same-sex blessings,” said Jaynan Clark Egland, WA president. Like Goodsoil, however, the public statement of concern belies a private sense of victory at defeating Recommendation 3, which didn’t even garner a simply majority.
Who wins and who loses, then? Well, who knows? Too much is still up in the air. The actions, Eastwood of Goodsoil quipped, should be headlined “Lutherans Embrace Ambiguity.” Probably some truth in that. But our sense right now is that the real meaning of today’s actions won’t be clear at least until the Conference of Bishops meets on Monday. That’s where there will be some hard talk about whether bishops can continue to ignore the standards of the church with regard to ordination.
Not that this is the "final" vote by any stretch of the imagination. The basic problem remains, and that is that in ELCA governance anything and everything can be put to a vote by these assemblies which meet every two years and which are comprised of 2/3 lay people, most of whom have never attended such a gathering before. The Bishops are just 65 votes out of 1000, and not even their own legislative chamber.
It is American democracy run completely amok, complete with race and gender quotas all in the name of "inclusivity" and "diversity". No wonder that sodomites demand their "full inclusion".
The Body of Christ was not intended to become a Whitman's sampler of perversions.
Lutheran ping, please.
Unfortunately, the best that can be said is that it wasn't as bad as it could have been.
Recommendation 2. Whether Hanson wants to admit it or not, the ELCA now has a local option in which any pastor so inclined can perform a pagan rite of some kind, blessing homosexual marriage, under the rubric of "pastoral care."
An attempt to amend Recommendation 2 explicitly to exclude homosexual weddings from "pastoral care" (the Owen motion) was defeated. No one is talking about this unpublicized vote but it is the camel's nose under the tent. Those preachers who are so inclined will interpret it as permission to marry homosexuals, and no one can now tell them they are wrong. It falls within the category of "pastoral care" as affirmed by the CWA.
No. At least not that would be noticable beyond the usual retiring of congregations. These people only want to change the church. They couldn't care less whether they are a part of it.
Yes, the BadSeed "rainbow" crowd disobeyed the rules and stood at the front, in a gesture of intimidation. But there was no real stromtroop action--i.e., blocking entrances, chanting or other actions to disrupt the proceedings. I was very pleasantly surprised that no such disruption took place. Maybe the heavy security explains how the "rainbow" stormtroopers were held in check. If anyone who was in Orlando could comment (i.e., am I wrong that there was only rather mild intimidation?) I would appreciate it.
Yes, this is the first event that might be considered an orthodox victory in ELCA history. However, revisionists pastors, "bishops", and activists will find ways to drive trucks and even tanks through Resolution Two, to ignore Resolution Three, and to accuse orthodox Lutheran "bigot homophobes" of failing to abide by Resolution One.
More importantly, the Assembly voted against God's Holy Name, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, by passing Destroying Worship!!!! No one should be voting on that issue at all--it was decided at Nicea!!!! As Orthodox Christians pray every Sunday, may we ever praise God's Holy Name, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, unto ages of ages. Amen!
Gaysbian activists don't care a hoot about Lutherans, Methodists, UCCers, Southern Baptists, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, etc. They just want to bend as many churches as possible to their will, and to silence and marginalize their orthodox members, in order to get the general society to accept homosexuality and to criminalize any resistance to it!!!! This statement is very well-documented, including Mein Kampf-like manifestos written by "gay" activist themselves in the early 1990s and even earlier.
The "soulforce"/"goodsoil" crowd will re-frame their strategy, based on that goal and no other. In fact, in statements in 2004 and before, they have "threatened to stay" in the ELCA.. So that is probably what they will do, along with continuing to work with the feminazis to undermine orthodoxy in the denomination.
As I stated in the opening post, they get another chance in 2 years and in 4 years and in 6 years and so on until the parousia--or until massive Constitutional changes are made, so I counting on the parousia.
In the meantime, although they lost a skirmish on Friday they won the war earlier in the week when their agenda was passed 3:1 with the green light for "Evangelical Lutheran Worship" which will not be very evangelical, barely recognizable as Lutheran, and worship (in many cases) of someone/thing other than God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In short, narcissistic idolatry.
Within 10 year practice will shape piety and theology; within a generation of using this inclusivist nonsense all that the GLBT folks are advocating will be fait accompli.
Within 10 year practice will shape piety and theology; within a generation of using this inclusivist nonsense all that the GLBT folks are advocating will be fait accompli.
These miscreants won't have 10 years!! There is an already forming resistance to the DECEPTIVELY named "Evangelical Lutheran Worship", inlcuding the continuing strategy of Solid Rock/Word Alone/other regional reform groups, and resistance planned by individual congregations. This BOGUS hymnal, as well as the totally liberal protestant nature of the ELCA, may effectively split the denomination. Then the revisionists may "get their way" in, say, 2007or 2009, but they will have an empty husk of a denomination with many fewer members and many others who refuse to pay benevolence or who use other hymnals, etc.
However, I am in a "blue synod", so resistance here may well be virtually non-existent. Since my congregation has until now been liturgically conservative over the 60 years or so of its history, I owe it a determined resistance to ELW, but expect no success. Then it's probably off to the OCA for me.
Since there are not that many Lutherans here to start with, even this "blue synod" cannot afford the defections and turmoil that ELW will produce. We are already closing churches, and others are teetering on the brink of failure. "Not with a bang, but with a whimper."
By the way, besides the bogus title for the hymnal, chosing a red cover for it is also TOTALLY bogus!! People are already talking about the "real red book". Anyone who wants to can order a brand-new copy of that book (the old "Service Book and Hymnal" that was used from the late 1950s until the late 1970s) from Augsburg Fortress. The SBH and the LBW were put together by REAL liturgical scholars (not partisan idealogues), and were not foisted upon unsuspecting congregations while they were focused on a controversial issue about sex!!!!
Tony, what is the bottom line? I have been traveling the past two days. It sounds like a whole lot of nothing.
"I take you to be my loving partner" is one of the proposed "marriage" vows; final review is up to the Presiding Bishop and a few cronies, and then it hits the stores and pews a year from now. Yipeeee!
The revisionists may have lost a skirmish on Friday but by winning the hymnal.....
Except that this is the first time we have been able to stop their agenda for just a little bit perhaps, but we're working hard on the right combination of fumigation for the termites!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.