Welcome to Chicago

[Richard Johnson]

I'm only making a point of it because I'm new to this moderating thing and wanted an example to use for my plea to everyone: As a matter of policy, just ignore the people you don't like. We want people feeling welcome as first-time posters here.   

     Well put Pastor.  May I be the first to say "Hail Peter, esteemed moderator.   Long live the new king"

Regards,

Senior

Isn't the first part of that: "The king is dead..."?

Mark 5.39b.

Uhhh, talitha cum? 

Your versification is erroneous.

[scott3]

I'm only making a point of it because I'm new to this moderating thing and wanted an example to use for my plea to everyone: As a matter of policy, just ignore the people you don't like. We want people feeling welcome as first-time posters here.   

     Well put Pastor.  May I be the first to say "Hail Peter, esteemed moderator.   Long live the new king"

Regards,

Senior

Isn't the first part of that: "The king is dead..."?

Mark 5.39b.

Uhhh, talitha cum? 

Your versification is erroneous.

No, I'm just trying to rouse that little girl in you. 

[Richard Johnson]

No, I'm just trying to rouse that little girl in you. 

No comment.

[ptmccain]

OK, this thread just got ... a bit on the weird side.



I'm kind of hopeful for another big showy protest at the ELCA convention. Makes it more interesting to watch. Perhaps the speakers can wear "GoodSoil" sponsorship patches on their shirt sleeves? Kind of like NASCAR drivers cover their jump suits with sponsorship patches?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Charles, as a reporter you know that facial expressions reveal a lot to the onlooker. You know for a fact how important reading faces can be, in political debates, in trials, in business deals, in counseling, in everything.

But how closely and clearly would cameras capture the facial expressions of all 1000+ voting members at the CWA? I'm certain that by selecting particular groups of people, a camera operator (or the button-pusher in the booth) could give the impression that everyone was upset or that everyone was pleased with what was happening.

[Richard Johnson]

Charles, as a reporter you know that facial expressions reveal a lot to the onlooker. You know for a fact how important reading faces can be, in political debates, in trials, in business deals, in counseling, in everything.

But how closely and clearly would cameras capture the facial expressions of all 1000+ voting members at the CWA? I'm certain that by selecting particular groups of people, a camera operator (or the button-pusher in the booth) could give the impression that everyone was upset or that everyone was pleased with what was happening.

This is really sort of pointless, don't you think? Different people, all present, had different impressions of what was going on. Period.

[Brian Stoffregen]

This is really sort of pointless, don't you think? Different people, all present, had different impressions of what was going on. Period.

Exactly my point against those claiming to know what was in the minds of even a majority of those 1000 people. Sometimes the point is, the argument is pointless. (Having just watched War Games again, it can be like a compluter playing tic tac toe against itself -- every game will be a draw. No one ever wins.)

[Charles_Austin]

RIchard Johnson writes:
Different people, all present, had different impressions of what was going on. Period.

I comment:
Yes. So for Pastor McCain to declare what was "revealed" to him from afar in that video is ridiculous.

[ptmccain]

It must be hard for a person who supports the gay-rights agenda in the ELCA to recognize how many rank and file ELCA members hold such an agenda in utter contempt. The looks on the faces during that protest were priceless: disgust, anger, sadness, irritation, a "give me a break" look, and when the chair commented on how he was used to puerile petulance as a father of six, that got quite a good response from the delegates. It was all easy to see, live and in color.

[1Ptr5v67]

Below is an excerpt from another Lutheran that was there in 2005,  as posted on her blog - Reflections Day 5

http://onelutheransthoughts.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_archive.html
I think this action hurt this group and any possibility for changes in policy (although that would still have been slim) at this point. I personally was offended as they simply showed no respect for the assembly or the work of this church. I wonder how many who sit/sat on the fence on this issue voted down issue three simply because they thought, "Well, if they break the simple rules here, what else will they do?" So I was appalled and insulted.
http://onelutheransthoughts.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_archive.html

[ptmccain]

Thanks for posting that. I think the full quote is worth reprinting here, from that blog site:

Then issue three, certainly the most controversial. This was debated and several alternative ammendments were put forth (all of which failed) from allowing for the full inclusion (ordination, consecration and commissioning) of any practicing gay/lesbian (GLBT) persons; to who would monitor this 'special ordination' - from the Church Council to the Presiding Bish... All of these were defeated, and the motion that carried simply stated that this church would continue to uphold the Visions and Expectations document for all of its candidates and rostered people. Therefore no change in policy.

What was most disturbing was the action of the Goodsoil group. At the beginning of issue two I noted a significantly larger group of these silent protestors on either side of the conference hall. Then when issue three was called to the floor, they broke through the visitor barriers and proceeded to walk to the front of the hall, directly in front of the stage where the presiding bishop stood. All who were protesting wore a stole - but no rainbow sash anymore. There was murmuring and some limited shouting in the hall, but the bishop called for silence. Then the bishop informed the group that they were out of order and violating the rules of the assembly, and asked them to return to the visitor section. Over the next 10 or so minutes this group did not move, several on the floor called for personal privelage and spoke about the group (either calling them on their violation or asking the house to simply allow their silent protest and to take from that the importance of the issue.) The bish. spoke to this and made a motion to simply continue on with the business of the day, and not to allow others to detract from the important business of the day. It looked like a gentleman from WA was going to move to have them forcibly removed, but the bish.'s motion passed and so debate, and voting continued. This group remained upfront passed the time when the assembly adjourned.

I think this action hurt this group and any possibility for changes in policy (although that would still have been slim) at this point. I personally was offended as they simply showed no respect for the assembly or the work of this church. I wonder how many who sit/sat on the fence on this issue voted down issue three simply because they thought, "Well, if they break the simple rules here, what else will they do?" So I was appalled and insulted.

I learned later that CW was aware of their intended protest and were ready outside with personnel and security if need be, and the bish. was simply trying to avoid having to have the personally removed. I saw a kind, gracious and yet powerful leader in the bish. this day, and I have great respect for his dignity and honor.

God, continue to be present in this church and help us remain in gracious and thoughtgul dialogue.

[Richard Johnson]

I wrote:

Different people, all present, had different impressions of what was going on. Period.

Charles responded:

Yes. So for Pastor McCain to declare what was "revealed" to him from afar in that video is ridiculous.

And then Paul added:

It must be hard for a person who supports the gay-rights agenda in the ELCA to recognize how many rank and file ELCA members hold such an agenda in utter contempt. The looks on the faces during that protest were priceless: disgust, anger, sadness, irritation, a "give me a break" look, and when the chair commented on how he was used to puerile petulance as a father of six, that got quite a good response from the delegates. It was all easy to see, live and in color.

To which I respond:

What part of "period" don't you guys understand? 

[Maryland Brian]

I comment:
Yes. So for Pastor McCain to declare what was "revealed" to him from afar in that video is ridiculous.

  ... in your opinion ...

   Communication events happen in one's head as words/expressions/gestures and such are shared between individuals who compare their observations, their emotional reactions, their interpretations, their wants in the moment etc., etc.  We call that dialog.

  Basic communication theory, that I suspect all of us learned in seminary (NOTE - this is an assumption I hold so I am open to being called on it not true for all), tells us that labeling another's feelings, interpretations, etc. shuts down conversations every time. 
I also remember my first mentor, Dr Carl Mau telling me that ironically he'd found most of his communication staff had very poor interpersonal communication skills.  But then, that was his experience as the general secretary of the LWF and may not hold true for all communication specialists either.

Maryland Brian

[ptmccain]

Our moderator emeritus has said, "period." What part of this don't we all understand?

[Maryland Brian]

Our moderator emeritus has said, "period." What part of this don't we all understand?

  I posted before I read further down the page.  Perhaps I should read all new messages before replying in the future.