Lutheran (EL
* as of August 19, AD 2009, a liberal protestant SECT, not part of the holy, catholic and apostolic CHURCH.
Posted on 08/20/2009 5:19:02 PM PDT by lightman
The assembly reconvened, with the PB laying out an ambitious agenda for the afternoon. PB: “I’m deeply grateful for your preparation, your good spirit, the care you demonstrate for this church.” My observation is that the use of white cards (which are for parliamentary inquiries etc.) is sometimes impeding our work. Please use them judiciously. Often a synod bishop can help if you have questions or inquiries. My commitment is to help you do your work. Re: electronic voting. Following the vote on the social statement, I paused before announcing the results. In that time no one reported an inoperative keypad. Last night some voting members requested that their individual votes be checked; we followed up, and we can say unequivocally that the votes were counted accurately. Continued requests to do this uses valuable staff time. We have full confidence in our electronic voting process.
Bp. Jessica Crist, Montana Synod, led Bible study on Luke 7.36-50, using that as a text from which to reflect on the ELCA tag line “God’s work. Our hands.” Much of this was interactive, with Bp. Crist posing questions for voting members to discuss among themselves.
After a few other matters, the assembly took the second ballot for vice-president. The second ballot consists of all those who received votes on the first “nominating ballot,” excluding those who have withdrawn. Of the 97 original nominees, 44 withdrew. One would expect Carlos Pena to be elected on this ballot, though of course that’s what I said about the first ballot.
Pr. Don McCoid introduced the proposed full communion agreement with the United Methodist Church. This dialogue has been going on for more than 30 years, and then four years ago we approved interim Eucharistic fellowship. More recently, the World Methodist Council signed the Lutheran/Roman Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification. The United Methodist Church approved full communion with the ELCA last year with a 98% vote. The procedure for the CWA is to vote to accept or reject, with no amendments permitted. Allan Bjornberg introduced the United Methodist representatives: Bishop Gregory Palmer, President of the Council of Bishops of the UMC; Bishop Sally Dick (MN Conference); Dr. Sarah Lancaster (Methodist Theological School of Ohio); and Rev. Betty Gambol, staff of the UMC’s ecumenical office. Bishop Palmer brought brief greetings and remarks.
The implementing resolution touches on such points as: --Recognize in one another the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith . . . --Recognize the authenticity of one another’s Baptism and Eucharist, and extend sacramental hospitality to one another’s members --Recognize the validity of our respective ministries . . . [and] the full interchangeability and reciprocity of all ordained ministers of Word and Sacrament --Authorize the establishment of a joint commission [for coordination, consultation, etc.] --Applaud one another’s ecumenical conversations with other church bodies, acknowledging that each church remains free to pursue additional full communion agreements as each deems appropriate
Pr. Barbara Wills, NE IA moved to refer the recommendation to the office of the PB in order that the ELCA may have further opportunity for discussion and exploration of the proposed recommendations in preparation for consideration at the 2011 CWA. Her argument is that the ELCA has been so focused on sexuality that we have not had adequate time to discuss this very important proposal. PB asked Don McCoid to reply. He reminded the body that we have been in dialogue with the UMC since 1977, and there has been ample consideration. (His response was rather lengthy, which appeared to be a bit unfair since it amounted to debate.) Pr. Larry Smoose, SE Penn, moved previous question, and it was sustained by 91%. The motion to refer was then rejected, 96-890.
Guy Erwin (SW CA), a professor at Cal Lutheran. As a historian, I can say our two churches are closely intertwined, as are the lives of individual Lutherans and Methodists. I urge you to celebrate this relationship by approving this proposal. Bp. Jessica Crist, Montana, thanked those who have worked on the dialogue. United Methodists are next largest denomination in Montana and northern Wyoming, after ELCA. We have good relationship, natural relationship, and this will help support mission and ministry for us. Bp. Elizabeth Eaten, Northeastern Ohio. We already share theological education in Ohio. I urge that we move forward. Bp. Greg Pyle, Allegheny. Supported it; spoke of a united Lutheran/Methodist congregation in Altoona. Bp. Burk, SE Iowa, supported. Interesting to see lines of bishops standing to support the proposal, when so few of them have spoken on the sexuality issues. Next up, Bp. Boerger, NW Washington, in favor. This may be a church to church agreement, but in the northwest, it’s already happening in congregations. Steven Chapman, NW Wash. What took so long? Bp. Marie Jerge, Upstate NY. Not a perfect statement, as neither church is perfect, but it allows us to move forward. William Franz, Va. I teach at a UMC college. We share core values, fundamental understandings. My faith has been enriched by my relationship with United Methodists. Bp. Rimbo, Metro NY. More of the same. Bp. Claire Burkat, SE Penn. More of the same. Bp. Michael Keys, Alaska. More of the same. Bp. Julian Gordy, Southeastern, more of the same. Bp. Holloway, So OH, more of the same. Steve Talmadge, Grand Canyon. I was baptized in a Methodist church. More of the same. John Gates, FL/Bahama. I came with some concerns and questions, but I’m pleased to say that the excellent answers I’ve received have allayed my fears. I enthusiastically support it. Pr. Larry Smoose, SE PA. More of the same. Finally someone managed to move the previous question, and the process moved quickly to approval of the full-communion agreement by a vote of 958-51. The assembly rose and sang the Wesley hymn, “O for a thousand tongues to sing!” Some further implementing resolutions were approved.
Continuing on the ecumenical theme, the assembly heard video greetings from some ecumenical guests. First, from John Thomas, President of the United Church of Christ. “We have a unity not based in our full agreement, but in Christ.” He said pretty much what one would expect, but it was fun for me to see since John was my room mate for a year at Yale Divinity School and is still a good friend.
Representing our bilateral colleagues, Archbishop Wilton Gregory, archdiocese of Atlanta and chair of the ecumenical committee of the U. S. Conference of Bishops. “We are on a journey of hope toward the unity for which Christ prayed. . . . God has blessed us with interchurch marriages . . . together we have staffed homeless shelters and extended compassionate care . . . so that world might believe. Our unity in Christ is always a gift, but it is fragile . . . This week the ELCA faces a set of decisions that may have weighty consequences for the unity of your own church and for its relationship with the Catholic Church . . . at stake are the teachings of scripture and tradition [with regard to] sexuality and marriage. Our prayer is that you remain open to the Holy Spirit who binds our consciences to truth, Biblical truth.” “Without adherence to Holy Scripture, our communion with the church in very age is lost.” (Pope Benedict) “Let us profess the Biblical truth in love so that the world might believe.” PB: To Wilton’s representative: I want you to convey to the Archbishop that no matter what the decisions are made here this week, we will remain in dialogue.
And finally Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches. NCC is made up of very diverse bodies, but we are held together in Jesus Christ. This one was pretty boring.
PB introduced some other ecumenical guests, rattling off their names as they stood the stage. Seemed like sort of a perfunctory gesture.
A motion was made to restrict speeches to four when speakers on only one side of an issue wish to speak. The motion was opposed and supported by a couple of speakers. This actually got into a bit of humor, especially when one voting member suggested that some people might be induced by the webcasting to speak more than is necessary, to which PB quipped, “Anybody you want to say hello to?” At any rate, the motion to amend the rules to restrict number of speeches when only one side wishes to speak was defeated, 506-386 (needed 2/3).
The assembly next took up the implementing resolutions on the sexuality statement. There are fifteen implementing resolutions; several amendments were proposed, and the ad hoc committee recommended all of them be defeated (with one exception: a motion to remove the resolution calling for liturgical materials on divorce received “no recommendation” from the ad hoc committee).
John Gates, Florida Bahamas, moved amendment D1, which deletes the following words: To request the Office of the Presiding Bishop to explore the feasibility of developing liturgical resources for use by rostered leaders, individuals, and families at the time of divorce. Recognizing that in some situations divorce may be an appropriate choice, it is very unclear what kinds of resources we are being asked to consider. Is it a celebration of divorce? A release of vows? Do we really want to create a church ceremony that violates a promise made before God? Divorce is never something to be celebrated. PB asked Rebecca Larson to respond briefly. Implementing resolution comes out of pastoral concern to be sure that appropriate resources are available.
Pr. Kay Richter, E. Central Wisc. Divorce is a reality; it is important for those who have been in abusive relationships to have a way to be supported within their congregation as they continue their lives following a break-up of a marriage. Elizabeth Guthrie, SW Penn, moved as a substitute that the language be changed (rather than deleted) so that it reads, To request the Office of the Presiding Bishop to develop pastoral care resources for use by rostered leaders, individuals, and families at the time of divorce. I think we need resources to assist families at the time of divorce, but not liturgical materials which would celebrate divorce. John Gates, FL/Bahamas was willing to withdraw his motion in favor of the Guthrie motion, so the latter became the main motion.
Pr. Jean Larson, Montana. Against, as a divorced and remarried person. Liturgical resources can be healing in times of sorrow. As a pastor I appreciate any resources I can get. (unidentified). Another divorced and remarried pastor argued for the importance of providing a rite to bring closure. Robert Schaefer, director of the office of worship, called attention to the fact that some liturgical resources already exist in the Pastoral Care volume of ELW, which of course leads one to wonder just why this implementing resolution is there at all. Another divorced woman pastor Pr. Leslie Williamson came to the mic, and spoke of the importance to her of confession and absolution following her divorce. Previous question moved and approved. The assembly proceeded to vote down the proposed amendment, 345-629.
Roy Gibbs, NW Ohio, moved to amend the resolution affirming the 2001 ELCA message on Commercial Sexual Exploitation by adding the 1996 message “Sexuality: Some Common Convictions.” He noted that statement did not address homosexuality, but spoke more clearly about sexuality in areas where there indeed are common convictions. It would be one more clear resource that pastors can use, addressing pornography, prostitution, sexually transmitted diseases, etc. Now PB called on Rebecca Larson again, who essentially rebutted the amendment by noting again that social statements take precedence over messages, and now that there is a social statement, earlier messages are subsumed under the statement. This is a peculiar argument, since the resolution itself affirms an ELCA message adopted prior to the Social Statement. Well, strike peculiar and insert “stupid.” And unfair again, seems to me, to have someone intimately involved with the task force offer what is essentially debate rather than answering questions.
Rick Peterson, S Central Wis., moved previous question on all matters before the house. 685-285 the motion was adopted, and thus the assembly indicated they didn’t want to allow any further discussion of the sexuality statement implementing resolutions. If I had a picture of a train, I’d insert it.
The motion was defeated 316-663. An odd prayer was then offered, addressed to “Lord God, heavenly host of the universe . . .” Gives a whole new meaning to God as a welcoming God.
Excuse me if I’m becoming a little less objective here. Maybe I’ll feel better after dinner.
The implementing resolutions were adopted 695-285. Most of these, of course, are fairly innocuous. The most problematic ones: (2) Affirming the “various studies created for the Journey Together Faithfully series as resources for ongoing deliberation”—studies in many cases quite bad. (3) Encouragement of liturgical rite for divorce (4) Encouragement of development of educational curricula for youth based on social statement. Who would want to buy it? (7) Calling upon amendment of eligibility provisions of pension plan, “consistent with the policies of this church, to include individuals in same-gender marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships.” Wow. (10) Calling on church’s advocacy ministries to “support and advocate measures consistent with this social statement.” Look for this to justify supporting gay marriage because the statement allows that “some of us” support gay marriage.
The implementing resolutions were adopted 695-285. Most of these, of course, are fairly innocuous. The most problematic ones:
(2) Affirming the “various studies created for the Journey Together Faithfully series as resources for ongoing deliberation”—studies in many cases quite bad.
(3) Encouragement of liturgical rite for divorce
(4) Encouragement of development of educational curricula for youth based on social statement. Who would want to buy it?
(7) Calling upon amendment of eligibility provisions of pension plan, “consistent with the policies of this church, to include individuals in same-gender marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships.” Wow.
(10) Calling on church’s advocacy ministries to “support and advocate measures consistent with this social statement.” Look for this to justify supporting gay marriage because the statement allows that “some of us” support gay marriage.
* as of August 19, AD 2009, a liberal protestant SECT, not part of the holy, catholic and apostolic CHURCH.
In other discussions I have often posited that one major acceleration of the slippery slope leading to this week’s madness was when divorce and subsequent remarriage became acceptable, first for laity, then for clergy.
An attempt to bring “legitimacy” to adulterous behavior and ill-spoken vows through a liturgical rite of divorce is every bit as God-mocking as the homosexual agenda being advanced.
Can it get much worse than the debate on developing a “rite of divorce”?
Read the transcript, lifted from Lutherlink/Ecunet and judge for yourself:
We will now move to consideration of the implementing resolutions on page 39. May I have your unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the resolutions?
The motion is now before you. We will continue with the amendments to the implementing resolutions that were submitted prior to the deadline or through synod memorials. Pastor Loy will review the committee’s recommendations.
Loy:
(Mim does not have the documents in front of her and hesitates to try to spell out what any say, since they are not being projected on the screen. )
Loy referred to the report of the ad hoc committee on the amendments and the fact that they were not recommended, so it depends on the maker of the original amendment to bring it up before the assembly.
Gates: Amendment D1 — no recommendation to delete lines 16-19 in #3 —
“to explore the feasibility of developing liturgical resources for use by rostered leaders, individuals and families at the time of divorce”
Do we want to create a church ceremony that violates a lifelong promise made before God? Divorce is a tragic reality. Jesus taught against it. It’s never something to be celebrated and I don’t think it’s appropriate for the church to create worship resources about it.
Larson: This comes because of the social statement’s pastoral concerns relative to divorce. This implementing resolution does not attempt to do more than make pastoral resources available.
Richter: Divorce is a reality in our congregations, and it is important for those who have been through abusive relationships and are beginning new lives following divorce to have their status recognized by the congregation.
Guthrie wants to amend to “to develop pastoral care resources” instead of “liturgical resources” — move to substitute. I believe it is important to provide resources for pastoral care, but think they should not be liturgical.
Gates: Would accept that as a friendly amendment if that helps things along.
Hanson: The easier way would be to withdraw and then hers becomes the main one.
Gates: willing to do that.
No one objected to the discussion becomes about the new proposed amendment.
Larson: As a divorced and remarried person, I speck against this amendment. It is important, and as a pastor I appreciate all the resources I can get.
Speaker: As it simply asks to explore the feasibility. There are times when that ritual will be very important.
Cos: As a divorced and remarried woman I *needed* a liturgical rite equally public to the marriage promises, to bring closure to people involved in divorce.
Shaffer: There are already resources in the new “Pastoral Care” volume which include prayers and other resources, some of which are appropriate to use with children.
Speaker: The opportunity to offer public confession of culpability in the broken relationship is important.
Move the previous question.
Blaine: Does “pastoral care resources” preclude “liturgical rites” — since your office is where it’s being referred.
The parliamentarian agrees that we need to finish calling the question; we can answer your question later.
Vote on ending debate:
Yes: 764 No: 202
Vote on the proposed amendment: takes a majority
Yes: 345 No: 629
The amendment is defeated.
COMMENT: By defeating the ammendment to have the resources be titled “pastoral resources” rather than a “liturgical rite” the main motion then became developing a liturgy of divorce.
The implementing resolutions to the Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust social statement. Takes a majority to adopt.
Yes: 695 No: 285
Kyrie Eleison.
So that’s basically it then. Where does the idea of gay clergy stand. Are we there at this point.
What will you do when Bob and Fred come to you and ask you to marry them?
What a pant load, Pastor. Look, I have been through a divorce, twice! I am not proud of the fact that I have, although I am satisfied that the second one saved my son. But, in my Lutheran churches, first ALC and second, LCMS, I didn't need a liturgical ceremony to force the congregation to accept me.
In the first one, a woman who constantly teased me, came up to me with her husband, hugged me and told me, out loud, "John, you are not the first to go through this and you won't be the last! Just know that we all love you!"
If the ELCA needs a liturgical hammer to force their parishioners to accept a recently-divorced member, then there is something terribly wrong with the ELCA, and I believe we all know that fact!
The fish rots from the head, first!
"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point." -MARTIN LUTHER
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
Archbishop Wilton Gregory, archdiocese of Atlanta and chair of the ecumenical committee of the U. S. Conference of Bishops. “We are on a journey of hope toward the unity for which Christ prayed...God has blessed us with interchurch marriages... Our unity in Christ is always a gift, but it is fragile... This week the ELCA faces a set of decisions that may have weighty consequences for the unity of your own church and for its relationship with the Catholic Church... at stake are the teachings of scripture and tradition [with regard to] sexuality and marriage....
Rick Peterson, S Central Wis., moved previous question on all matters before the house. 685-285 the motion was adopted, and thus the assembly indicated they didn’t want to allow any further discussion of the sexuality statement implementing resolutions. If I had a picture of a train, I’d insert it.
... The implementing resolutions were adopted 695-285....The most problematic ones: ...(3) Encouragement of liturgical rite for divorce (4) Encouragement of development of educational curricula for youth based on social statement. ...(7) Calling upon amendment of eligibility provisions of pension plan, “consistent with the policies of this church, to include individuals in same-gender marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships.” Wow. (10) Calling on church’s advocacy ministries to “support and advocate measures consistent with this social statement.” Look for this to justify supporting gay marriage because the statement allows that “some of us” support gay marriage.
* * *
Oh, no agenda there, in trying to join forces with another feminist-occupied denomination long gone down the tube. Luther and Wesley and Asbury, all spinning in their graves.
While the UMC does accept female ordination, we do not accept homosexuality in our pastors, nor do we support homosexual marriage, plus we believe homosexuality to be incompatible with Christian teaching.
Since the ELCA has moved in the direction of endorsing homosexuality, the UMC general conference will intervene to reject any ministry by any avowed homosexuals.
Why don’t they just reject any union with the ELCA?
Thank you for the update. What you say is true in many parts of the country, such as when I visit my friends' UM churches in the South. However, my experience with the UMC was lifelong here in the Northeast, up until around 2000, which was before the Conference finally put its foot down and made the decision not to officially elevate homosexual behavior. Like the Catholic Church still struggling with having admitted huge numbers of homosexuals since the 60s, the Northeastern states' Methodist pastorates are still full of brazen, closeted or not-so-closeted gays and lesbians.
"Reverend" Dean Snyder is just one example of a UMC pastor who has gone over the line repeatedly, yet was recently promoted as a "possible" pastor for Obama:
Pastor Of Clinton's Former Church, Dean Snyder, Defends Jeremiah Wright
Washington[Gay]Blade: D.C. church expands gay-friendly policies
Scroll down to read about the corruption in the UMC in the Northeast U.S., and about my one-time bishop, Susan Morrison.
That would be a possibility if they could not find agreement keeping homosexual members out.
Anyone would have to be brought up on charges and then proven to be a homosexual (practicing.) That’s not so easily done unless the person has been public with their sexual behavior, or someone has pictures/recordings.
The denomination takes very seriously the rights of any accused person. I agree with that. Pastors have been falsely accused in the past, and they will be in the future.
Proving someone has performed a same-sex wedding in one of our churches is a bit easier. It either happened or it didn’t. To skirt the law, the rebels will go to parks and conduct things not termed weddings.
I don’t deny the rebels are there. It’s really hard to pin them down in a church court, though, if they’re not willing to be pinned down.
I understand. Homosexuality and political liberalism in a pastor have become almost indistinguishable, it's true. But as a congregant, you must make your best judgement call for your family when the pastor has crossed the ideological or behavioral line with you or your kid.
Whether a pastor is actually a practicing gay or lesbian, or just a full-tilt left liberal who openly espouses all manner of sexual disorder, something has gone very, very wrong in the northeastern Conferences -- not just gay-favoring behaviors, but things like hiring the town adulterer to renovate the sanctuary over the objections of the married people in the congregation, supporting an adulterous couple and pushing out the jilted wife (who is left with the four abandoned children to find a new church because the husband is now doin' it with the divorcée Sunday School teacher) -- not even to mention the gender-language alterations and egregious gay-promoting hetero-bashing that started coming into open expression from the pulpits in the 80s-90s. This was the case with 9 out of 10 pastors that served the churches we went to in the Philadelphia and Baltimore-Washington Conferences. The one exception was a partially retired former military chaplain, God bless 'im. ( ;-) wink)
It stands to reason that the devil would try to take down pastors, and that the organized worldwide socialist movement would target organized religion. And they are succeeding beyond even their wildest dreams in this nation that is banishing God from the public square, from schools, from television, from law.
If you have the time, the article linked above in post 21 explicates the process of church takeover by sexual anarchists; even though that article was about Catholic priests, our eastern UM Conferences were not far behind. It is my fervent hope that the new rules will help the UMC recover. But nearly all the conservatives have departed our UM churches in the northeast; only the lefties remain to dance on our forefathers' graves out in the churchyard.
The Good News, AW, is that our process favors growing conferences over declining ones. At the denominational level, votes are allocated per population size of members. At the local church level, churches are penalized financially for over-stating their numbers of members.
What this means is that fruitful conferences now have far more votes about the direction of the denomination than do those dying, shrinking conferences.
And Jesus prunes the fruitful to make them even more fruitful.
Oddly enough, the victory will go to those who legitimately make new disciples of Jesus Christ. They will grow the other side into obsolescence.
A wonderful post. Thank you for hearing me out. Now it is time for me to consider what you are saying. I should visit a few UM churches again now, after my 7-year sabbatical (I’ve been in ad-hoc home churches of 5-7 people for those years).
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.