What's next?

[CAJ]

Regarding the upcoming social statement on sexuality, I understand that this will take a two-thirds vote to adopt.  Is that right?

Given the results this year, does it seem possible that any proposal that says anything can get enough votes to pass?  One side or the other seems to have enough support to block it.  Or would a "let's get along even though we disagree" be the most likely outcome?

Those on the list that are more politically aware than I might have some perspective on this.

Carl Jensen

[Brian Stoffregen]

Regarding the upcoming social statement on sexuality, I understand that this will take a two-thirds vote to adopt.  Is that right?

That is right.

Given the results this year, does it seem possible that any proposal that says anything can get enough votes to pass?  One side or the other seems to have enough support to block it.  Or would a "let's get along even though we disagree" be the most likely outcome?

I think that it is possible. Recommendations 1 & 2 received more than a 2/3rds majority.

In 1991, more than a 2/3rds majority approved a Social Statement on Abortion. There was a lot of questions about whether or not the ELCA could adopt a statement on abortion with the differences among our members. We did. One of the things they did at that assembly was to include an addendum which stated: "The following amendments (at the points indicated in the text) received significant support at the Churchwide Assembly but they did not receive the vote needed for approval." Then those amendments were listed.

This gave those who had some objections to details in the statement the knowledge that their amendments would continue to be heard by the church.

[Norsk]

Ah yes, but Reco 1 and 2 actually did nothing, in terms of changing the status quo.  Reco 1 was truly a nothing -- a feel good statement of classic Lutheran niceness.  And we all know about the ambiguity of Reco 2.  So I guess in some way the above is correct -- a social statement can get more than 2/3 vote, so long as it doesn't actually say anything definitive about anything.  (Not unlike the so-called "statement" on abortion.)

[Brian Stoffregen]

Ah yes, but Reco 1 and 2 actually did nothing, in terms of changing the status quo.  Reco 1 was truly a nothing -- a feel good statement of classic Lutheran niceness.  And we all know about the ambiguity of Reco 2.  So I guess in some way the above is correct -- a social statement can get more than 2/3 vote, so long as it doesn't actually say anything definitive about anything.  (Not unlike the so-called "statement" on abortion.)

I don't think that social statements are created to change the status quo. They are official statements about what the ELCA teaches/believes about a particular subject. If someone asks, "What does the ELCA say about abortion?" I refer them to our social statement.

It is quite likely that a proposed social statement on sexuality will include many statements upholding the importance of marriage for the proper expression of sexual behaviors. It is likely that it will include something about the proper use of contraceptives and statements against promiscuity, sex-for-hire, and the use of sex in advertising.

It was suggested that for those who studied the first sexuality draft -- which never made it to a CWA vote -- that they should underline every statement that they agreed with. There were many. Unfortunately, all the attention was drawn to a few statements that many ELCAers disagreed with.

I would suggest the same with whatever drafts come out over the next four years.

[Gladfelteri]

It was suggested that for those who studied the first sexuality draft -- which never made it to a CWA vote -- that they should underline every statement that they agreed with. There were many. Unfortunately, all the attention was drawn to a few statements that many ELCAers disagreed with.

I would suggest the same with whatever drafts come out over the next four years.

Well, as they say, "the devil is in the details."  

The obvious thing, from my perspective, would be to unbundle the things on which there is wide agreement, and put them into a separate statement from the one contining the items people disagree on.  Of course, from a political, parlimentary standpoint it may make sense to bundle the controversial item(s) with the non-controversial ones in the hope that somehow the entire statement will pass to get the non-controversial elements in (with the problematic parts riding on the coat-tails.)  

But to me, at least, separating the items on which there is broad agreement from the items which are controversial into two separate amendments, statements, etc. would be a bit more honest, and in the long run, more productive.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Well, as they say, "the devil is in the details."  

The obvious thing, from my perspective, would be to unbundle the things on which there is wide agreement, and put them into a separate statement from the one contining the items people disagree on.  Of course, from a political, parlimentary standpoint it may make sense to bundle the controversial item(s) with the non-controversial ones in the hope that somehow the entire statement will pass to get the non-controversial elements in (with the problematic parts riding on the coat-tails.)  

But to me, at least, separating the items on which there is broad agreement from the items which are controversial into two separate amendments, statements, etc. would be a bit more honest, and in the long run, more productive.

In a sense, we already have a document of items of broad agreement. In 1996 the Church Council approved, "A Message on Sexuality: Some Common Convictions." This document was divided into four study sections for Journey Together Faithfully, Part One.

However, this is not an official Social Statement of the ELCA. It has not been approved by a super majority at a CWA.

[G.Edward]

Well, as they say, "the devil is in the details."  

The obvious thing, from my perspective, would be to unbundle the things on which there is wide agreement, and put them into a separate statement from the one contining the items people disagree on.  Of course, from a political, parlimentary standpoint it may make sense to bundle the controversial item(s) with the non-controversial ones in the hope that somehow the entire statement will pass to get the non-controversial elements in (with the problematic parts riding on the coat-tails.)  

But to me, at least, separating the items on which there is broad agreement from the items which are controversial into two separate amendments, statements, etc. would be a bit more honest, and in the long run, more productive.

You know Irl, that's a good idea - seperate, or at least seperated, so we can be clear about all this...now where have I come across that concept before...hmmm... things we agree on in one section, things we differ on in another...hmmm....the Augsburg Confession!

[G.Edward]

In a sense, we already have a document of items of broad agreement. In 1996 the Church Council approved, "A Message on Sexuality: Some Common Convictions." This document was divided into four study sections for Journey Together Faithfully, Part One.

However, this is not an official Social Statement of the ELCA. It has not been approved by a super majority at a CWA.

Why do you think we didn't just vote on the existing document to make it a social statement, instead of drafting something new??  Hmmm  :-/