Author Topic: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2  (Read 10539 times)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43160
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2
« Reply #15 on: August 18, 2011, 01:16:32 AM »
Wow...they were allowed to meet with a convention commmittee to draft the language?

That's very telling.
They were the ones to suggest it originally and were a force in getting it adopted by so many Synods.  Why should they not be consulted as the original authors?

Dan

In part because LC/NA is being given more of a voice than synods and congregations have.  This is the typical slight of hand where the final wording presented to the CWA differs in small but significant ways from the resolutions adopted by synod assemblies.


Even though the same wording was available to every synod, those who actually presented the resolution in the synods sometimes changed the wording. Not every synod passed exactly the same resolutions. A compromise wording was necessary for presentation at the CWA.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2
« Reply #16 on: August 18, 2011, 07:18:20 AM »
dcharlton writes:
In part because LC/NA is being given more of a voice than synods and congregations have.
I comment:
The organization has no "voice" at the Assembly. It has not proposed memorials, resolutions or anything else. All comes from the Synods and Voting Members.
Now, before the howling starts, it is admitted that some are sympathetic to that organization. But some may be sympathetic to CORE or Lutherans for Life, and those organizations have had exactly the same opportunity to get their concerns in front of synods and the ELCA.
And if what Richard suggested upstream is true, that organization did not get its way on every point.
And I suppose it is useless to say this here, but even if one is opposed to homosexual behavior, we should not want people harassed and bullied, sometimes into deep depression and suicide because of it.

revklak

  • Guest
Re: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2
« Reply #17 on: August 18, 2011, 08:25:25 AM »
Plenary session extended to 6 p.m. Remember how we spent all afternoon and evening yesterday not doing plenary business?

APART from the sex - which seems to dominate this thread, with good reason, but it wasn't the only thing -- I find this comment of Richard's interesting...

Seems we have a wasted afternoon, and need to extend WEdnesday evening.  Any correleation to the skyrocketing cost of putting on a CWA?  At least NALC did theirs in 24 hours -- yes, we have less delegates, but even when CORE 2 years ago pulled  together the convocation with over 1000 (about the same number) at much less expense.... seems there could have been other ways to cut costs, but why, we've got all this financial income to support all kinds of missions -- even an afternoon off in Orlando!  ;)

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12583
    • View Profile
Re: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2
« Reply #18 on: August 18, 2011, 09:02:53 AM »
Now, before the howling starts, it is admitted that some are sympathetic to that organization. But some may be sympathetic to CORE or Lutherans for Life, and those organizations have had exactly the same opportunity to get their concerns in front of synods and the ELCA.
Did not all the Synodical resolutions opposed to the actions of CWA '09 that authorized the HSGT social statement and change in ministry standards get lumped together with a bunch of other Synodical resolutions and were summarily declined without consideration or debate?  Groups opposed to the current direction did what you suggested, propose resolutions to their Synods and have them passed, only to see them discarded without consideration.

Dan

I found it fascinating this morning that the Assembly approved no response to resolutions from synods regarding sexuality as part of the en block actions.  No discussion.  No consideration.  No request for separate consideration.  Just some garbage about acknowledging the sorrow and joy of people in the ELCA to the 2009 actions and declining to reconsider.

Let's not talk about it -- just move on.  Nothing to see here.

I think that would have been the only opportunity for the assembly to address the 2009 sexuality actions.   I had hoped someone could have mustered the 10 voting members so that they could have discussed it. 

Sad but telling.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 09:11:52 AM by Dan Fienen »
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2
« Reply #19 on: August 18, 2011, 09:13:20 AM »
Pastor Fienen writes:
Groups opposed to the current direction did what you suggested, propose resolutions to their Synods and have them passed, only to see them discarded without consideration.
I comment:
No. They were not "discarded without consideration". The ones I know about were presented and the synod assembly chose not to deal with them. That is, they "considered" them; and then decided not to "consider" further. That's how parliamentary procedure works.

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12583
    • View Profile
Re: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2
« Reply #20 on: August 18, 2011, 09:17:07 AM »
I'm sure it gave those who proposed, passed and forwarded those resolutions a nice warm feeling to know that their concerns were glanced at and declined without further discussion.

Dan
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2
« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2011, 09:53:32 AM »
Pastor Fienen writes:
I'm sure it gave those who proposed, passed and forwarded those resolutions a nice warm feeling to know that their concerns were glanced at and declined without further discussion.

I comment:
Why do you persist in putting the worst possible construction upon the actions of people in assemblies you know nothing about? "Glanced at"? "declined without further discussions"? No.
But no one has the absolute right to say to a synod assembly: "You must discuss this!" If an assembly says it does not want to deal with a resolution, that is the will of the assembly.


DCharlton

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
    • View Profile
Re: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2
« Reply #22 on: August 18, 2011, 10:11:08 AM »
dcharlton writes:
In part because LC/NA is being given more of a voice than synods and congregations have.
I comment:
The organization has no "voice" at the Assembly. It has not proposed memorials, resolutions or anything else. All comes from the Synods and Voting Members.
Now, before the howling starts, it is admitted that some are sympathetic to that organization. But some may be sympathetic to CORE or Lutherans for Life, and those organizations have had exactly the same opportunity to get their concerns in front of synods and the ELCA.
And if what Richard suggested upstream is true, that organization did not get its way on every point.
And I suppose it is useless to say this here, but even if one is opposed to homosexual behavior, we should not want people harassed and bullied, sometimes into deep depression and suicide because of it.

You are correct in saying that LC/NA has does not have a voice by right, but it was apparently given a voice.  And when it comes to being invited to negotiate the final content of the resolution, do you know of any synods that were invited.  As far as I know, my synod was not invited to that final drafting session.  It seems highly unusual that a outside organization would be given that privilige.  Now, can you imagine Lutheran CORE being invited to help draft CWA resolutions, help write educational materials, and partcipate in establishing policies for the ELCA? 

We should also keep in mind that in the future, as a result of the resolution that was passed, LC/NA will be given a permanent seat at the table.  No longer will it be viewed as a political organization, but a social service agency like LSS.  That a pretty major change.

And you since you engaged in your typical churlish innuendo, no one here has lamented the fact that a resolution against bullying was passed.  What we have objected to was the the inclusion of LC/NA in the resolution.  Many synods, my own included, removed reference to LC/NA to make it clear that it was about protecting victims of bullying and not about empowering a political organization.  In the end, however, the targets of bullying (LGBT persons) were not named in the resolution, but LC/NA was.  So its fair to conclude that the purpose of the resolution in LC/NA's eyes was more about increasing its power and influence in the ELCA than in forging a common front against bullying.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 10:21:23 AM by DCharlton »
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

DCharlton

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
    • View Profile
Re: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2
« Reply #23 on: August 18, 2011, 10:16:42 AM »
Wow...they were allowed to meet with a convention commmittee to draft the language?

That's very telling.
They were the ones to suggest it originally and were a force in getting it adopted by so many Synods.  Why should they not be consulted as the original authors?


Of course the Committee could just bully the original framers of the resolution to accept the committee's wording.

Well in a sense they did.  The Committee and LC/NA together overruled the will of a majority of ELCA synods.  If, as Charles asserts, LC/NA has no voice, then they had no business in the discussions.  So it was the Committee acting as a proxy for LC/NA that determined that the wording adopted by the majority would be ignored.   
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Erma S. Wolf

  • Guest
Re: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2
« Reply #24 on: August 18, 2011, 10:26:25 AM »
   I spent time last night pulling up the video of Sec. Swartling's report and the part of the preliminary report dealing with those synods' memorials.  As far as the matter of communities under 10,000, yes, a number are from extremely small communities in South Dakota and Western Iowa.  Still, it would be interesting to see a list of all the 10,000 and under communities in which congregations left the ELCA. 

   As for the memorials, I know that everything was done according to correct parliamentary procedure.  However, it is still interesting to read the main rationale for the argument that the assembly should not consider them.  When it comes to reconsidering the social statement, the main issue is the amount of money it would take to do so.  The committee argues that this would entail the assembly calling for a complete re-assessment of the statement, including scheduling public hearings and listening posts around the ELCA.  If that is indeed the case, then frankly the ELCA can't afford to do this.  Interesting argument.  The other memorial, regarding rescinding the ministry standard changes, is handled with a two-prong argument: 1, that even rescinding the new standards could not reverse the calls and ordinations that have taken place since the new standards went into effect (isn't that interesting!), and 2, since there were also two or three synods that passed memorials asking for the new standards to be adopted and fully implemented as quickly as possible, then the whole matter is a wash. 

   I am just hoping no one back here in Western Iowa asks me what happened to their memorial to churchwide.  Telling them the assembly declined to even discuss them, from a synod that has lost over 10% since 2009 as a direct result of that assembly's actions, will be very hard to explain.  Procedurally very correct; but out here, feels like a slap in the face.  Bad PR is still bad PR, no matter how by-the-rules it happens.

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2
« Reply #25 on: August 18, 2011, 10:27:51 AM »
I just give up, dcharlton. You seem obsessed with the idea that a particular organization somehow or other "got in on the conversation." You do not know what constitutes a Social Service Agency.
And you do not know ELCA history. Various groups over the years concerned with issues relating to immigration, women's rights, civil rights, war and peace, and other matters have had a "voice." None of them have a controlling voice.
If you would deny a particular organization a place in the discussion, that is a problem. Yours. Not ours.

And before the usual response comes, I asked Mark Chavez of CORE whether they had any particular legislative resolutions in the pipeline of the ELCA Assembly. He said that CORE did not.

DCharlton

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
    • View Profile
Re: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2
« Reply #26 on: August 18, 2011, 10:55:26 AM »
I just give up, dcharlton. You seem obsessed with the idea that a particular organization somehow or other "got in on the conversation." You do not know what constitutes a Social Service Agency.
And you do not know ELCA history. Various groups over the years concerned with issues relating to immigration, women's rights, civil rights, war and peace, and other matters have had a "voice." None of them have a controlling voice.
If you would deny a particular organization a place in the discussion, that is a problem. Yours. Not ours.

And before the usual response comes, I asked Mark Chavez of CORE whether they had any particular legislative resolutions in the pipeline of the ELCA Assembly. He said that CORE did not.

Give up if you choose Charles. Its the thing to do when one is wrong.

Let me educate you, however.  I'm not obsessed with the idea that LC/NA was consulted in the drafting of the resolution.  That seems to be a fact.  I'm simply wondering why, given the divided nature of the ELCA, the primary political arm of one side is given a special place at the table.  It rightly gives the impression that some are more equal than others.  The majority of ELCA synods seem to have come to the same conclusion, a conclusion which was ignored in the final draft.  Its a conclusion which you may ignore as well.  However, it is more than my personal obsession.

And I understand what a social service agency is, which is why I was surprised that LC/NA was mentioned in the same sentence as LSS.  LC/NA is not a social service agency but a political party.  Last time I checked LSS does not regularly draft resolutions to go before the CWA.  Nor does it have a strategy of getting its supporters elected at the synod and churchwide levels of the ELCA.  LC/NA does. 

You may be correct that CORE does not have any resolutions in the pipeline, but it has in the past.   Now, can you truly imagine CORE being asked to help draft a final resolution to be put before a CWA?  I doubt it.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 11:02:19 AM by DCharlton »
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

DCharlton

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
    • View Profile
Re: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2
« Reply #27 on: August 18, 2011, 11:05:21 AM »
Here is the wording reported by Richard:

"churchwide organization, synods, congregations, campus and outdoor ministries, Lutheran School Associations, Lutherans Concerned/North America, Lutheran Social Services organizations"

To borrow from Sesame Street, "One of these things is not like the others.  One of these things does not belong.
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2
« Reply #28 on: August 18, 2011, 11:33:20 AM »
dcharlton writes:
I'm simply wondering why, given the divided nature of the ELCA, the primary political arm of one side is given a special place at the table.

I comment:
Not a special place, but a place. And they got that place because they came to the table. Where was CORE?

Richard Johnson

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10403
  • Create in me a clean heart, O God.
    • View Profile
Re: Wednesday afternoon plenary part 2
« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2011, 01:31:09 PM »
dcharlton writes:
I'm simply wondering why, given the divided nature of the ELCA, the primary political arm of one side is given a special place at the table.

I comment:
Not a special place, but a place. And they got that place because they came to the table. Where was CORE?

Trying to recover their stolen signs?
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS