As the assembly convened after lunch, Bp. Hanson first clarified the parliamentary situation (again fairly, in my view). There was a brief interruption by Bp. Rimbo, asking that the Palestinian Lutheran bishop be invited to address the body (by phone) prior to consideration of the Middle East resolution. House agreed, of course.
Then the Assembly took up the Benne amendment. Bob Benne spoke first, arguing for clarity and consistency with the bishops’ statement, the social statements of predecessor bodies, the rites of the LBW, and the teaching and practice of the church catholic. There followed twenty minutes worth of debate. Supporters mostly pled for clarity, opponents argued that the policy we’ve had has been working, there’s no need to change. Ultimately the Benne amendment lost, 418-581.
Next came the amendment of David Owen, Slovak Zion synod. This one would have specified that “pastoral care” doesn’t include blessing of same-sex union. Bishop Ullestead tried to cut process short by moving previous question on all matters before the house, but the Assembly would have none of it. Debate proceeded, with the arguments being pretty much the same as they had been on the previous motion. Bp. Craig Johnson of Minneapolis made a comment that raised some eyebrows by saying, a bit petulantly, that he wanted the definition of pastoral care to be made by “my pastors on the ground in Minneapolis, not by somebody in Pennsylvania or Southwest Minnesota.” A subsequent speaker identified himself as being proud to be serving in the Southwest Minnesota Synod. In the end the Owen motion was defeated, 415-580.
Then one from the other side. The Steven Benson motion to specify that the bishops’ statement not be used for discipline was debated. There was twenty minutes of debate, and then the Benson motion was defeated 382-612.
Then an amendment by Bp. Carol Hendrix, which would change the phrase “same-sex couples” to “all to whom they minister”—in other words, it uses the language of the original Conference of Bishops advice with no reference to “same-sex couples.” One significant point made by Pr. Bill Crabtree of Sierra Pacific Synod was that this issue affects many people, not just gay and lesbian couples; their families, for instance, are often in need of pastoral care. After some debate, the Hendrix motion CARRIED very narrowly, 491-484.
A goodsoil operative immediately asked for a ten minute recess, which was refused overwhelmingly by the house. Debate proceeded on the recommendation as amended, and after just five speakers, the question was moved and voted. There was request for clarification from the Church Council as to whether or not the recommendation allows blessing of same-sex unions, to which Council member Jonathan Eilert gave a non-answer. This resulted in a couple of members saying they would have to oppose this, because they don’t know what it means. But the Assembly apparently was comfxortable with the ambiguity, and the recommendation as amended (by the Hendrix motion) was APPROVED 670-323.
Bp. Martinson of Alaska attempted to move reconsideration, but Bp. Hanson deferred that motion until after action on Recommendation 3.
The irony here is that neither Goodsoil nor Solid Rock is particularly happy about this action, but on the whole my sense is that Goodsoil likes it less, at least at first blush. It gives some additional authority to the Conference of Bishops statement (until now, nothing but “advice”), and eliminates a specific reference to same-sex couples. On the other hand, Solid Rock wanted a specific prohibition of same-sex blessings, and the Assembly was not willing to do that. My guess is that the secular press will lead with “ELCA refuses to ban same-sex blessings.”
roj in Orlando 8/12/05 3:09 p.m. EDT
