The fateful Friday morning session began with Bp. Hanson suggesting a modification of the agenda by extending the afternoon plenary by three hours. There was some unhappiness, but the house agreed. The bishop then led in prayer, using the prayer from the LBW rite for confirmation. He set an excellent tone.
The report of the ad hoc committee charged with determining the order of consideration of the proposed amendments to the sexuality recommendations had apparently been circulating on the floor, and it turned out that the maker of the motion (Eric Peterson of Wisconsin) didn’t like the outcome. The committee, using what they called a “common sense approach,” had suggested taking the amendments to Recommendation 2 in this order: Neils, Benne, Owen, Benson, Hendrix, Yambor (see earlier entry for summaries of what these motions would do). This would mean that the “most revisionist” would comefirst, followed by the “most traditionalist.” But now Peterson insisted that his intent was that motions which AMENDED the main motion should be taken prior to those which were SUBSTITUTES, and he argued that provisions in Robert’s Rules suggested that as the proper order. Bp. Hanson ruled—correctly, in my view—that by approving Peterson’s motion yesterday, the assembly had in fact established a new rule, and that therefore the committee’s proposed order was in order. Peterson appealed the ruling of the chair, but the house sustained the bishop.
Then a motion was made to ask the Church Council to clarify its intent with Recommendation 2. Again the chair ruled this out of order because it had not been submitted in a timely manner; again the ruling was appealed, and again the chair was sustained.
At last the Assembly took up Recommendation 1, the one calling for unity. There was speaking in favor and against, but the resolution is a difficult one to oppose. Lou Hesse, the task force member who drafted a minority report, spoke against it (“speaking only for myself,” he said). He argued that unity is not something about which we should vote; it is, if it exists, a gift of God. He asked that his abstention be recorded. Some of those who spoke in favor used their remarks as an opportunity to lecture traditionalists, saying, in effect, “You may be voting for unity, but I’m not sure you really mean it, since you aren’t supportive and loving toward me.” (I do not deny that there is some truth there, with regard to some traditionalists.) To my mind the most eloquent speech was made by Matthew Erickson, a California voting member (and a “traditionalist”) who is about to start seminary. He spoke of how moved he had been in listening to the comments made during the quasi committee of the whole, and how proud he is to be a member of this church. He called back to mind the story of Jacob, used by Bp. Payne in her Bible study, and talked about the importance of holding on to one another and not letting go. Then, in a remarkably deep silence, the assembly voted in favor of Recommendation 1, that we “concentrate on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements,” by a vote of 851-127 (83% in favor).
roj in Orlando 8/12/05 11:13 a.m. EDT
