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 5:29:01 PM PDT by lightman
The assembly then heard a report from Reference and Counsel. The first motion coming from R&C deals with health care reform. The bottom line: Resolved, that the ELCA in assembly commit this church in all of it expressions to the premise that ‘each person should have ready access to basic health care services that include preventive, acute, and chronic physical and mental health care at an affordable cost’ and that the assembly ‘request that the ELCA Washington Office, in partnership with the synods, congregations and members of the ELCA, convey the urgency and sense of this resolution to Congress and the White House.” Resolution presented by Bp. Jessica Crist, and signed by all the other synodical bishops. One wonders why this is important, given an already existing social statement on health care, other than jumping on the current political bandwagon. One also wonders just how the assembly has the authority to commit “this church in all of its expressions” (meaning synods and congregations) to anything.
Ron Lashing, (didn’t get the synod) opposed because the resolution doesn’t really make any specific proposals, just says to Washington “Do something, do something!” Another speaker (again, missed name and synod) supported the resolution. Bruce Davidson, NJ, supported as well. “Time for us as the church of Jesus Christ to speak out on behalf of those who have no health care.” The ELCA office in Washington has already sent out several alerts urging us to contact our representatives—well, why do we need to give them permission, then? Larry Struve, Sierra Pacific Synod spoke in favor. Beginning to look like there was wisdom in that motion to restrict speeches when only one side wants to speak. Jim Owens, SC, a question about why there is a shift in language between the resolution “ready access to basic health care” and the explanation “equitable access to healthcare for all.” R&C chair didn’t seem to follow the question, and so time was wasted trying to figure out what question he was supposed to answer. At length the chair of R&C noted that the two phrases are lifted from different parts of the social statement, but a substantive difference was not intended. Pr. Rani Abdulmasih, SE MI spoke about the importance of this action at this time, especially for immigrants who lack basic services. Question was moved and adopted, and the resolution on health care reform was approved 799-126.
Phil Harris brought report of second ballot for Vice President. 974 legal ballots cast, needed 733 (75%). No election. The following will be brought forward to the third ballot: Carlos Pena 657 Norma Hirsch 146 Ryan Schwarz 43 Nanette Dahlke 37 Robert Benne 21 Tom Taylor 16 Y Chiu 6 Jim Martin 6
OK, interesting. My guess would be that the votes for Hirsch are some combination of feminist/pro-gay votes, while those for Schwarz and Benne are “CORE” votes, both “sides” looking to replace the “moderate” Pena. Don’t know who the rest are, but now there will be a Q & A thing with all 8, so that should be interesting. I think Pena is still a shoo-in, but that this is becoming a bit of an issue means something . . . not quite sure what.
Next Secretary Swartling presented an en bloc motion to approve a bunch of innocuous constitution/bylaws amendments. (Those of any controversy would be considered separately.) Approved 891-51.
One to be considered separately addresses relocation of a congregation and establishment of a new worship site. This requires a congregation to confer and consult with the appropriate churchwide unit before making such a change. This is actually a combined amendment to ELCA, synod and congregational constitutions.
Pr. Judy McKee, Lower Susquehanna, urged defeat. Such consultation maybe a good idea, but shouldn’t be required constitutionally. Bp. Michael Burk, SE IA, supported the amendment, which arose from action in his synod. Pr Siri Beckmen Sorenson, SD, opposed. On the ground, decision making often needs to happen quickly, not slowed down by consultation with churchwide. (Note: consultation is already required with the synod bishop, and approval of the Synod Council is required for relocation, so what would be added is churchwide consultation. Requirement for consultation on development of additional worship site would be new.) Bp. Bjornberg, Rocky Mountain: Just experienced a situation where this kind of consultation was lacking, and it has been very problematic. Pr. Serena Sellers, SE Penn Synod. On a synod staff, I’ve learned the consultation is very simple. Just requires picking up the phone. Such weighty decisions deserve the input of the wider church. Previous question called and adopted; the motion to approve these amendments was approved 772-188.
Back to the Memorials Committee. A memorial E3 relative to Lutheran Disaster Reponse. An innocuous thing that “acknowledges that LDR currently is involved in a strategic planning process” and encourages continued process. Edward Cool, NE Penn moved to add a fourth paragraph that would ask consideration of establishing a permanent LDR advisory committee. Pr. Serena Sellers, SE PA spoke—apparently didn’t get the memo that this was an amendment, and she was supporting the original memorial. Cliften Ashback, Lower Susquehanna, supported the amendment. Bp. Marie Jerge spoke against, because the amendment anticipates action before work on a strategic plan is adopted. The amendment was approved 549-345.
Bp. Marie Jerge (upstate NY) supported the memorial. Bp. Kurt Kusserow, SW PA did the same. The memorial was adopted 929-20.
Another memorial, Strategy for Engagement in Israel and Palestine. This is a response to requests from several synods, which essentially “reaffirms the commitment of this church” to a variety of things (really, nothing new, but reaffirming current ELCA “strategy”). Pr. Richard Mahan, WV WMD. As an Arab-American pastor, I oppose. There’s no mention about Israeli occupation of Palestine. As a church we’ve never expressed solidarity with a nation state or government. Bp. Bruce Burnside, SC Synod of WI, in support of memorial. We need to be pro-justice, not pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. Our strategy is responsible, giving advocacy, awareness, and accompaniment. Pr. Rob Giese, NW Synod of WI, also in favor. Al Quie, Minneapolis, against. There is a bias in the ELCA against Israel. Walls can bring peace. Pr. Rani Abdulmasih, SE Mich. In favor. Deeply grateful for the leadership of the ELCA on this issue. I was born and raised in Jerusalem, and have witnessed first hand the struggle. Pr. Herb Spomer, Lower Susquehanna. Against, for a variety of reasons. Resolution should be framed to ask for accords designed to achieve peace. Bp. Duane Pederson, NW WI. Supports memorial committee, because I oppose some of the language of the memorials from synods, language which would have us recognize Israel as a Jewish state, or muting our voice to challenge the political legimacy of various movements. I want our church to challenge unjust actions.
Pr. Richard Geib, Lower Susquehanna, moved an amendment to add “2. Evaluate and refine its peace making efforts to demonstrate as fully as possible the balanced care for all parties while continuing our relationship of accompaniment with Palestinian Christians.” Orders of the day were called, and continued discussion postponed to tomorrow.
Surprised?
Nor am I.
* as of August 19, AD 2009, a liberal protestant SECT, not part of the holy, catholic and apostolic CHURCH.
I suspect that if Martin Luther was alive now, he'd stand up in front of them and piss on their resolutions. Literally.
They think they are the Kingdom.
It Seems I can’t quite get that description out right. LOL
I think I understand what you are saying. God has become a prop for the ELCA.
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.