Recommendation 3 Defeated

[Richard Johnson]

Short story: Defeated 490-503. Full story after a bit; headed for a press briefing right now, and maybe then dinner.

[PIJim]

Come on Richard..........I have been hanging on your every word here.

BTW, you have done the best job (by leaps and bounds) of covering this assembly for those of us back here at home.

Thank you,

Jim Arneson
Mtka, MN

[Craig Goodrich]

Even niceness and a year of continuous antinomian propaganda couldn't quite defeat the residuum of Christian teaching present in the hall -- though it came close.  (If the Recommendation had passed but failed to garner the 2/3 it needed, the antinomian faction would have claimed moral victory and proceeded even more obviously to disregard ELCA's discipline -- which seems to be largely theoretical, now, anyway.)

Having watched the webcast, I look forward to a description of exactly what was going on with (apparently; they were invisible on the webcast) demonstrators occupying the front of the hall silently.  I'm a little surprised that none of the speakers said anything like, "Look at all these wonderful people standing before us there.  Will we help them find new life in the redeeming love of Christ, or will we conspire to enable them in behavior that science tells us endangers their physical and mental health and Scripture tells us endangers their salvation?"  ... But then, that would be too much of a blow to niceness and far too LCMS a thing to say...

My take (as an ex-Episcopalian): Christians 1/2, Antinomians 0.  Could have been a lot worse.

Craig

[Norsk]

Amen.  And Amen to Richard's fantastic coverage.  I too eagerly await the summary of the Reco #3 debate.

[MchungajiJFP]

It is encouraging that a majority of the voters were listening to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  I'm sure the issue will be back again and again in some form or other, but for those of us who feared that it was all but set for approval of recommendation 3, we must humbly thank God that he listens and answers prayers.

[dfrazer]

It is encouraging that a majority of the voters were listening to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  I'm sure the issue will be back again and again in some form or other, but for those of us who feared that it was all but set for approval of recommendation 3, we must humbly thank God that he listens and answers prayers.

Amen!

[Richard Ballard]

Richard,

Did the rainbow scarf wearing folk move in front of the Assembly during the vote on Recommendation  3?  That was what I seemed to gather form the photos on the ELCA website.  If so, I assume that Bp. Hanson did not try to prevent this acting out and attempt to influence the vote?

Richard Ballard

[Dennis]

I fully agree with the commendations to Richard!  He is providing very good coverage of the assembly.  Thanks from me, too!

Having watched the live webcast this afternoon, I also would commend Bishop Hanson.  He has done a good job at presiding over the debate.  I would suggest, however, that someone get a large "2" and place on the podium before him to remind him to ask for "second?

I anxiously await Richard's recap.

[Dennis]

Bishop Hanson did register his disagreement with having the protesters up in front.  In fact, he implied that they were behaving like children.  But, he said that it was his hope that everyone would be respectful and courtious and that the assembly would go on with their business. Attempts recess the assembly until the protesters departed, failed.

[Revbert]

From the Goodsoil Weblog:

"6 minutes ago, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) defeated, BY A MARGIN OF JUST THIRTEEN VOTES  Recommendation #3 of the Church Council, which would have authorized an exception so that congregations desiring to do so could call and ordain pastors who are in committed same-gender relationships. The final vote was 490 in favor, 503 against, a far cry from the two-thirds required for passage of Bylaws amendments. The only good news is that a more restrictive policy was explicitly offered as an amendment (by Louis Hesse), but was defeated by a slightly larger majority. "
(balance snipped, emphasis in the original)
-----

To which the follow (by this writer) was posted in response:

"Jeremy

Just a correction to your post regarding Recommendation #3.

The resolution required a 2/3 majority of those present and voting in order to pass.

Further, the NAYs were a 13-vote majority over the YEAs.

Therefore, the motion did not fail by 13 votes, but by 172.

Just want to make sure folks get the whole story."

[Richard Johnson]

Richard,

Did the rainbow scarf wearing folk move in front of the Assembly during the vote on Recommendation  3?  That was what I seemed to gather form the photos on the ELCA website.  If so, I assume that Bp. Hanson did not try to prevent this acting out and attempt to influence the vote?

Richard Ballard

No, it was after the vote on the first proposed amendment, as the second proposed amendment was being introduced.

[Mark E. Chapman]

I do not see this as any sort of victory for orthodoxy.  It is a 50-50 split (13 votes out of 1,000 is negligible).  All it shows is that the ELCA is as totally divided as ever over the normalization of homosexuality in doctrine and church life.  This gives orthodox Christians in the ELCA nothing to cheer over, and it gives the neo-pagans in the ELCA who want to introduce the normality of the abnormal a reason to continue the fight.  The vote means not only was nothing decided, but it gives a "moral imperative" to those who would push the normalization of homosexuality to take "prophetic" action by defying this resolution, ordaining active, practicing gays and lesbians, and challenging the denomination and bishops to dare do something about it.  "Goodsoil" and its advocates won the day as a "moral victory in defeat" for a "cause" that they have always couched in confrontational language.  The Church Catholic, in so far as it is still present at all in the ELCA, LOST in this 50-50 split vote.

[Coolrevgaus]

Well the Assembly has taken a variety of twists and turns and now the response and spin on all this will be heard. The important thing for confessionalists to take away from this is both a refusal to be complaisant, since there is clearly no ground for that, and a desire to continue to galvanize on these issues. The sleeping giant is the person in the pews, the laity who by a margin of 3 out of 4 at least did not want any change and or opposed it. One of the big stumbling blocks that led to the strong revisionist presence was the desire of pastors to serve as gate keepers on this issue to keep their congregations for the sake of unity, pensions, what have you in the dark about all of this. The days are long since over when the majority of folks got the Lutheran in their homes (thank goodness considering what it has become) but the truth is the laity as a whole no little about how bad things have gotten. In my experience it takes very little to lay before them the problems of the ELCA and to convince them that something is deeply amiss in the denomination. Confessional pastors and laity would at this point be well advised to do everything in their power to let the cat out of the bag not in a spoiled sport sort of way but in a rationale way. This church certainly has provided us with a lot of material to draw attention to. For many who hold a high view of the ordained ministry some very humble pie will have to be tasted, not that they must abandon that view, but simply to acknowledge that given the revisionist puppy factory that our seminaries have on the whole become it is going to be the laity more than the clergy who will in the end bail us out of this mess, if that is even possible at this point. Getting around the gatekeepers will be awkward and won’t lead to the best spirit of collegiality, using benevolence as a leverage will probably have to be applied-it’s distasteful but there are plenty of good causes to divert funds to. The battle is juts engaged, it would have been a total loss without Solid Rock and a host of other organizations and as far as I know they all welcome members and support.

[ROB_MOSKOWITZ]

Letting the cat our of the bag.   Paul you are absolutoly right.   But I have to tell you be prepared to answer to those who desire unity over the Word.    Letting the cat out of the bag will be met as being against the unity of the church and maybe even worse.

[Dennis]

I don't know where to put this exactly, so I'll put it here.

In reflection, it seems to me that the decisions of the CWA come close to reflecting the mind of the national church as indicated by the Sexuality Study itself.

In that study:  56.2% opposed blessings and ordinations
                      23.2% favored blessings and ordinations
                       17.2% had no opinion or urged delay
                         3.6% other options

The key percentage here is the 17.2 of no opinion/delay.  One wonders how these folks really might come down if forced to make a decision, as did the voters at the CWA.  If "no opinion" is viewed as an abstention, then it equates to a "no" vote.  However, this was not a vote it was an opinion poll and folks could opt to have no opinion rather than choosing one side or the other.  Clearly, only 56.2% of the poll respondents were firmly traditionalist.

Also, motions to substitute, both totally revisionist and totally traditionalist, failed by wide margins.  CWA voting members wanted to vote on the direct proposals, rather than on substitutes.  It is really hard to tell how many people voted for or against resolution #3 only because it did represent a kind of compromise and was suggesting an exception to the rules, rather than changing the rules themselves.  It is conceivable that while being in favor of the general rules of the church, and not wanting a major rule change, there would be some who would vote for some kind of exception to the rules.  The extremely vocal gentleman from Wisconsin might be a case in point.

Interesting sidenote:  He used the exception clause for CCM as a reason to have an exception to Vision and Expectations.  He identified himself as being with Word Alone on CCM, but he also was a reminder that those who opposed CCM are on both sides of the non-celibate gay/lesbian issue.