The memorials committee brings report. The first is a recommendation "to encourage all synods and congregations to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the ELCA's ordination of women . . . and the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the ordination of women of color . . . and to call upon synods congregations and churchwide to recognize the need for repentance and continued examination regarding equity for ministerial leadership . . . to direct the Office of Presiding Bishop . . . to conduct a gap analysis of rostered women with a particular focus on the challenges faced by rostered women of color."
A clergywoman from New York (pronouns she/her/hers) moves an amendment that would also recognize tenth anniversary of ordination of LGBTQ etc. "All clergy are an intersection of identities and experiences . . . we need to reorient and challenge the ways some of these gifts are not fully valued." Vice president of Metro NY (pronouns she/her/hers) speaks in favor. Pr. Minneapolis (she/her/hers): "my wife and I are both ordained in the ELCA" speaks in favor. "I'm acutely aware that ten years ago I would not be able to be here. I would love to be a part of this commemoration." Young adult from Metro NY (she/her/hers) "We must recognize that until ten years ago we did not recognize all women." NO ONE speaks against. Voting. 824 to 75. And so a commemoration of ordination of women becomes yet another LGBTQ thing. Let's see how that commemoration flies in congregations. There is applause; PB Eaton reminds people not to applaud. "There are people who do not agree with the action; out of respect for their opinion, please do not applaud." The wording of the amendment finally on the screen: "and the 10th anniversary of the ELCA's decision to remove the barriers to ordination for people in same-gendered relationships and recognize the diversity of gifts that women's ordination brings to this church."
Speaking in favor of the main motion by several . . . There is a procedural question about how this relates to the social statement--apparently something in the resolved that actually relates to the implementing resolutions. Anyway, with common consent the consideration is laid on the table until after the social statement discussion.
Next up a resolution on sanctuary. "To reaffirm the long-term and growing commitment of this church to migrants and refugees (reference to the AMMPARO strategy) . . .
Metro NY member (he/him/hers) moves amendment to declare the ELCA a "sanctuary church." VP of Metro NY in support (this time the vice president doesn't specify the vice president's pronouns, but presumably they the same as the last time the vice president spoke, but then one can never be sure of this). Bp. Tracie Bartholomew from NY against the amendment: there's no clear definition of what a "sanctuary church" might mean, and so this will be misunderstood. Member from SW Texas speaks in favor. Member from NW Wisconsin against ("if this is passed, is in incumbent on every congregation to provide sanctuary, even if members of the congregation feel this might be illegal or dangerous to their community?"). BP asks Secretary to respond; he says churchwide can't bind other incorporated entities, so congregations will make their own decisions. Bp. Rinehart Texas/Gulf Coast in favor: we too often talk in churchspeak; the sanctuary movement began many years ago, and everyone knows what it means. Member from South Carolina Synod (Hispanic immigrant pastor) "this is not about legal terms, but about the gospel. I am terrified. There is no day we don't wake up and think what's going to happen to us. This is an opportunity for our denomination to make a difference." Pastor from MN in favor "very bold statement, opportunity for us to continue to learn and speak boldly." Pastor NW OH (she/her/hers) in favor "We're already doing this as a church, it's important for us to say it explicitly." Member from Western Iowa moves previous question; bishop notes (with nudge from secretary) that there have been four speakers in favor and none opposed, which, under the rules, automatically calls the question. Point of order: Can we pray before we vote? PB: "Yes of course." Vote on the amendment "to declare the ELCA a sanctuary church body" Yes: 718, no: 191.
Continued speaking on the main motion. Pastor from NTex/NLouisiana: "Can we include a definition of sanctuary church body?" Bp. Riegel: "I was fully prepared to vote in favor of the memorials committee, but now I find I cannot." Notes legal issue: churchwide can't really provide sanctuary. Higgins road has only one shower, the one in the PB's office" PB notes there's also one in the secretary's office. Riegel: OK, I withdraw my concern, there's a 100% increase in shower facilities. But seriously, this is a legal issue, it would make Higgins road--since it IS the ELCA church body facility--a sanctuary facility and that's not realistic. Motion to add LIRS to those who are called to "review existing strategies and practices" regarding sanctuary. Problem with voting machines. PB: I was at the ELCIC convention, and they had problems but found if everyone stood up and hopped on one foot . . . (laughter). Let's use the cards. Amendment to add LIRS approved with card vote.
NW Washington synod member (she/her/hers) member of a congregation that has been hosting a sanctuary seeker. Rule of law does not always protect people. Argument about shower is the "no room at the inn" argument, not appropriate. Be a prophetic church. Southeastern Synod member: "We keep using the words migrant and refugee, and these are different categories. We should be deliberate; to whom are we offering sanctuary?" Upstate NY member: we're using the word sanctuary, but there's a large part of our population we're leaving out who need safe places--the disabled, the mentally ill, etc. Member of memorials committee: I'm in the odd position of speaking against a recommendation I helped craft. The original memorial lifted up ways to address immigration, but with the amendment we've added ambiguity and created legal issues that we may not be able to handle. More speaking in favor. PB calls the order of the day, asks people in line to check in so they can return when memorial consideration resumes.
Moving now to first common ballot--this is the ballot for church council and various boards and agencies. They're not actually voting right now; the ballot is long and complex. But there are some explanations and corrections to be made. People have until 2 something this afternoon to turn in their ballots.
Moving now to the first ballot for secretary. PB summarizes responsibilities and qualifications for secretary (she doesn't say the thing about needing to be a member of a congregation of "this church"). As I wrote that, Lowell Almen (the ELCA's first secretary) stopped by and asked if I was having fun yet. I asked him if he might be a candidate. "Not a chance," he said.
Oh, Bp Eaton just added the thing about congregational membership. I guess I'm still out. She's describing again how to vote, urging people to spell names correctly. This reminds me of the one time in my life I led the voting in a bishop's election. The ultimate winner was Robert Mattheis, but we had another pastor in the synod named Robert Matthias. Mattheis would have had the most votes on the first ballot, but a dozen or so (as I recall) voted for "Matthias" (most likely erroneously), and so I edged him out by a couple of votes. I immediately realized what had happened, but it was a heady moment nonetheless.
Credential committee: 932 voting members present. And they vote for Secretary. I suspect Bp. Riegel (one who has been talked about as a potential nominee) didn't do himself any favors by opposing the amended immigration resolution. (Or maybe he was deliberately trying to torpedo his chances, who knows?)
Announcements, and then recess for worship.
