Lutheran (EL
* as of August 19, AD 2009, a liberal protestant SECT, not part of the holy, catholic and apostolic CHURCH.
Posted on 08/21/2009 4:52:18 PM PDT by lightman
iday morning began with a motion by Pr. Jennifer Czarnota (E Cent. WI) that no motions to cut off debate on a main motion be permitted until all amendments which had been submitted in a timely manner be heard and discussed should the proposers chose to do so. (She didn’t mention that she herself has submitted two of the proposed amendments to the ministry policy recommendations.) Eric Peterson, S. Central WI opposed, on the grounds that the body may want to move more quickly on recommendations from the task force. [Note: This is an interesting question; the submitted amendments come from both sides of “the question.” Generally speaking, those opposed to the recommendations support this change, wanting a chance at least to speak.] Kurt Kasserow, SW PA spoke in favor of the motion because it makes a witness to the world that is patient, kind, loving, caring for one another, lifting up our commitment to respect the bound conscience of the other. Kim Winchell N/W Lower MI spoke against; ad hoc committee has recommended against all the amendments, and we should honor their work. Pr. Paul Messner, Upstate NY, in favor. In moving all matters before the house, we cut off all debate yesterday on the implementing resolutions; we debated only the amendments. We need to take all the time we need to ensure that all sides have a chance to speak. Motion defeated 372-598. Seems the Goodsoil folk smell victory and they don’t want to prolong discussion.
Bruce Davidson, NJ, moved that the recommendations on policy be voted on in the following order: 3, 1, 2, 4—in other words, the first considered would be the one that “the ELCA commit itself to bear one another’s burdens, love the neighbor, and respect the bound consciences of all.” He argued in favor of it, suggesting that the resolution that we will be committed to respecting one another’s conscience properly comes first. Pr. Kay Richter, EC Wisc., argued in favor, as did Pr. Rich Fitzer, E ND; resolution three should be the first step, the middle step, the final step in all our dealings with one another. Diane Yeager, Metro DC, spoke in favor. This was discussed in the task force; I argued that this should be number three. After reflection this week, I have changed my mind and support this motion. Steve Converse, New England, raised again the issue of whether the passage of each depends on passage of the previous, and PB reiterated that the original proposed process had been dropped. Pr. Judy McKee, Lower Susquehanna, spoke against, but seemed really to be speaking against the resolutions themselves. Larry Struve, Sierra Pacific, spoke in favor. Number 3 is really the key to the whole thing, and should be discussed first. Joyce Partyka, Indiana KY, asked if someone from task force might explain why they decided to make it number 3. Rebecca Larson responded. After the previous question had been called for, the assembly adopted the proposed change in order 717-270.
Pr. Steve Roy introduced the ad hoc committee report. Again, this is a committee charged with receiving and vetting any proposed amendments to the ministry policy reommendations. There were ten such amendments proposed, three of which the committee ruled “out of order” and the other seven the committee recommended “not be adopted.” Generally, five of the seven would move more rapidly toward “full inclusion,” the other two would be more “conservative.”
Resolution 3 that “the ELCA commit itself to bear one another’s burdens, love the neighbor, and respect the bound consciences of all” was brought to the floor. Bp. Kurt Kusserow, SW PA, asked a question that seemed a little obscure to me.
Al Quie, Minneapolis, moved a substitute that would essentially strike all four resolutions and substitute the language from Vision & Expectations, “Rostered leadership of this church who are homosexual in their self understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual relations and practicing homosexual persons are precluded form the rostered leadership of this church.” My main reason is to give those of us who oppose the social statement an opportunity to vote positively for something, rather than just opposing the proposals. These proposed changes are contrary to Scripture, and we should uphold our historic standards. Pr. Cory Johnson attempted to make a point, but was called out of order because the chair judged it not germaine to what was currently on the floor. Pr. Joseph Crippen, SE Minn., opposed the Quie motion. We have the opportunity to witness to the world a grace-filled way of reading Scripture. Scott Essing, Wester IA. We open our liturgy with words “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.” Paul tells us to “test all things.” I ask you to test this proposal in your hearts and see if it is Biblical or cultural.
Tim Mumm, SC Wisc. Opposed substitute. Work of Holy Spirit is powerful, gentle, and messy. If the Spirit forced God’s will on us, there would be no mess, but the Spirit works through justified sinners. This substitute takes us back to the letter of the law, which Jesus opposed. David Balch, resource person, gave his free, doesn’t count as debate, revisionist opinion about the meaning of Romans 1. Pr. Katrina Foster, Metro NY, opposed, so we essentially got three opposing speeches in a row. She cited all the ways we “interpret” Scripture with regard to women, divorce, etc. We spend so much time being against gay people—I wish we had the same zealous attitude being against poverty etc.
Carrol Shaddock, TX/Gulf coast, raised a point of order, pointing out that resource people seem to be making partisan remarks, and wondered if that is proper. PB responded that there is a difference from resource people and people with voice but not vote, and they are both using the so-called “resource mic.” He didn’t really address the (unstated) substance of the complaint, which was that Balch’s remarks were argumentative.
Bp. Peter Rogness spoke in favor of the original resolution and against the substitute, after some confusion about who, in this instance, should be “green mics” and who should be “red.” I have seen people on both sides weeping as one decision or another has been made. I am ready to make the changes proposed, but we need to feel one another’s pain as we do this. This is not crystal clear, and we must respect opposing opinions. I suspect that the decisions made in Acts 15 were painful to some. So we got four in a row against the Quie substitute. And then five, another speech by Kim Winchell. PB apologized that there had been two in a row; he apparently didn’t catch the speeches by Mumm, Balch and Foster.
There was a brief pause for prayer (there had been an earlier request that the assembly do this every 20 minutes during this debate). Al Quie, Minneapolis, wondered if it would be possible to suspend the Rules to vote on the substitute immediately. PB ruled that he was not properly at the mic.
Pr. Tim Household, St. Paul, who identified himself as one who is “at least for a few more hours a rostered leader in this church.” This assembly is not the ELCA. I stand here with every gay pastor who is living a celibate lifestyle because they know god’s will. I stand with the millions of ELCA Lutherans who have not confused grace with sensuality. . . Here I stand, broken, mournful because of this assembly and her actions. I can do no other, so help me God.
Pr. Sue Sprawls, SE Mich. spoke against the substitute. I speak for one who cannot be here to speak for himself, a gay man Lutheran to the core. He told me he hoped these matters were approved, but with tears he expressed concern that those who opposed changes don’t end up feeling as marginalized as we have for so many years.
Bob Rognlien, SW Calif. Opposed original recommendation. Those of us for whom this is an issue of conscience, we cannot compromise with those who oppose. We’re using this concept to allow people to exercise their freedom in violation of the conscience of others.
Pr. Carl Shankweiler, NE Penn. I am a moderate conservative, voted against the social statement, but I think Resolution 1 is essential.
The previous question was called on the substitute motion, and the assembly voted to close debate 856-148. The vote on the Quie substitute motion was then taken, and the substitute was defeated 344-670.
The assembly thus returned to the main motion, which is Resolution 3. Larry Struve, Sierra Pacific, moved to make certain wording changes that would be grammatically appropriate for the resolution since it is being considered first (i.e., it changes “these resolutions” to “any resolutions on ministry policies”). Pr. Loy for the ad hoc committee said in their view this was helpfully editorial, and had it come to them they would have recommended it. The amendment was then adopted, 888-65.
David Witkop, NE, spoke against. He began by apologizing and seeking forgiveness for any hurt done to gay and lesbian people; and yet he must oppose this on behalf of those who have been faithful to the Biblical standards in spite of their own same-sex attraction. Please, they ask, do not take away the church as a place where we hear both grace and truth.
Bp. Stephen Marsh, SE MI. As an African American, I speak in favor of this recommendation. Every year I learn more about the racism and paternalism in this church. I tried to leave this church, but the Holy Spirit was quite clear that I needed to stay. At the same time I’ve learned about how Jesus reached out to the oppressed. I stand before you as the newest bishop in this church, and speak for those who have had to bear burdens in this church. We must continue to do this, bearing one another’s burdens.
Curtis Sorbo, E. ND. Simply put, the idea of bound conscience is the avenue being used to look past Scripture. Jesus said “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them.” Who is remembering the child, the child who has yet to choose who their role models will be? We need to remember the child, not justify looking past sin and embracing of the unrepentant sinner.
Connie Kilmark, SC WI. We already know that we think differently about these issues. Those of us who have yearned for change have worked patiently from within, according to our lights. I worship in a community where we disagree on many things. In society we sort ourselves more and more in our music, our worship, our politics. In the church we have a bond of genuine affection that allows us to love one another in spite of our differences. I ask those who disagree with me to trust my sincerity, my faithfulness, as I trust theirs. I not only want to bear my neighbor’s burden, but share my neighbor’s joy.
Pr. Steven Frock, W. IA There is really only one question: that of sin, and how we respond to the sinner. This assembly has expressed its opinion that homosexual behavior is not sin, by passing the statement on sexuality. Before you did yourselves deeper into this hole, if you are so absolutely certain that this is the case, are you willing to place your immortal soul at risk? If so, vote yes; but if you have any doubt in your mind about the rightness of homosexual acts, then vote no.
Allen Wold, N. IL. There is a Lutheran tension between law and gospel. There are faithful Christians who say we should not adopt these proposals because they violate Scripture. But Christ is the fulfillment of the law; the whole of the law is to love our neighbor as ourselves. If I am going to be in error, let me err on the side of mercy, grace, justice and love of neighbor.
PB urged house to continue to focus discussion on the particular resolution before us.
Pr. Suzanne Morelli, Allegheny. It is a great dilemma for me to decide which microphone. I have much respect and love for my brothers and sisters who are of same sex orientation. I see them active in my church, having a home in this church. And yet I am stirred by the message of Scripture. Our sexuality has more to do with God’s identity than our own identity, we creatures whom God has created male and female.
Edward Cook, NE PA. This is a simple issue to press one button on this machine, but be sure that you will do what you are voting for, bear one another’s burdens, love the neighbor with a different view.
Jenny Wu, Metro Chicago. I speak on behalf of 35 Chinese congregations. We have stayed on sidelines of this debate, but we are impacted by every decision. We hold the Bible as the Word of God. We hold our pastors to a high standard. This resolution means that everyone can do what they want in the name of conscience. God’s standard is different from ours.
Miguel Hernandez, Rocky Mtn. I feel moved to say “thanks for being Lutheran.” I was born Roman Catholic. I could never have been a priest because I could never be celibate. You have provided a home for me, allowed me to preach in your churches. I support this resolution. PB again reminded us to stay focused specifically on Resolution 3.
Pr. Jeff Ruby, Grand Canyon, asked if someone from task force might clarify what they mean by “bound conscience.” PB ruled this out of order as a privileged question (i.e., not privileged to interrupt debate). Pr. Ruby appealed to the parliamentarian; PB consulted with the parliamentarian, then asked the assembly if they want to regard comments from the resource persons as matters of clarification that can properly interrupt debate. The assembly voted 181-253 that they did not want this. PB observed that this was a low vote total, but assumed that many just declined to vote.
At this point the previous question was moved, and the assembly sustained it. Resolution 3 was adopted, 771-230.
After singing a hymn, the assembly took up Resolution 1, that ELCA “commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, ad hold publicly accountable life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships.” Sara Gross (OR) spoke in favor by quoting from a Marty Haugen song. The failure of the church to welcome gay and lesbian couples is the reason people of my generation are not in this church.
An identified voting member moved to require 2/3 vote on any subsequent ministry policy recommendations. After consultation, the PB ruled the motion in order. Eric Peterson SC WI. Nothing has changed since Monday when we discussed this same issue. Never in this history of this church have we adopted a supermajority. We cannot be bound by our fears. Pr. Mike Toomey, E. ND. If we are going to change, we need the momentum of a supermajority in favor. Pr. Katrina Foster, Metro NY. When we voted to allow women’s ordination, it passed by only 57%, and yet it is clear that the church has been richly blessed.
The motion to amend the rules to require 2/3 was defeated, 407-576.
[continued in next post]
* as of August 19, AD 2009, a liberal protestant SECT, not part of the holy, catholic and apostolic CHURCH.
“Allen Wold, N. IL. There is a Lutheran tension between law and gospel. There are faithful Christians who say we should not adopt these proposals because they violate Scripture. But Christ is the fulfillment of the law; the whole of the law is to love our neighbor as ourselves. If I am going to be in error, let me err on the side of mercy, grace, justice and love of neighbor.”
Seems to have forgotten the part about loving God - which includes being serious about obeying him. I’m a Baptist, but I have learned a lot from Martin Luther...part of me weeps, but another part figures this is just the apostacy being made manifest.
I sincerely invite any and all Christians remaining in the ELCA to "come home" to Lutheranism in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod until such time as the American Lutheran Church can be resurrected from the ashes of this pyre that occurred this week!
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.