Current ELCA Crisis

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Have I missed something or have people forgotten about the "local option" in the resolutions. Since people on both sides are "bound by conscience" then the real debate should be focused on the "local option" provision. How do people feel about that? Are we becoming too congregational with this provision? It seems - since the merger - the ELCA has never figured out what its polity is? I know we are somewhere in the middle, but what takes presidence?

But many people do not consider this adequate. From the conservative standpoint there is a letter of opposition from Lutheran CORE that lays out their issue with the document and also some of the practical issues it creates that could divide the synod. Someone has posted the link on one of these homosexuality threads, maybe even this one.
But consider also what happens when you stand opposed to the "local option" of the churches in your area. If you are in say a more typically conservative region, perhaps all the churches have locally chosen to oppose it, yet you do not.
And if I may, perhaps my biggest issue with this entire document is that it hinges on "bound conscience". That to me was a poor theological concept, and not as well founded in the Lutheran tradition as it claims. And it ultimately means that the task force ignored completely its endeavor. It never dealt with the scriptural and ethical issues at hand that people on both sides were hoping for, instead it hung itself on individual opinion on ethical matters, which is also quite frankly a really dangerous precedent.
So yes there is the local option which would allow for both sides to very confusingly co-exist, but it will come I think at much greater difficulty than many realize and will permanently allow a huge rift to form within the synod that will inevitably send it in two radically different directions.
pax

 

[mnphysicist]

One of the things I remember reading were the demographics on this, but I dont remember where. Anyhow, the poll data indicated only a few % strongly opposed or for, with the vast majority of members only slightly agreeing or disagreeing. In light of such, the local option seems to make the most sense, at least pragmatically. It still bugs me from an ecclisiastical pov... it opens some doors which should not be opened.

I also agree with the issue of the individual whose beliefs are counter to what may be a widespread, or even synod wide call. Otoh, within the synod, I am sure there will be significant diversity. In looking at synod assembly results, even those strongly opposed, or strongly for, I've never seen anything even close to a 90% number, as far as the task force recommendations.

 

[soccerguy2594]

What's your opinion on WordAlone's memorial to suggest that the vote be a "super" majority instead of a "simple" majority?

 

[BabyLutheran]

I have been going to an ELCA church for 1 1/2 years now, it's my first time "being" Lutheran, and have not heard one mention of any of the so called "controversial" topics. And I like it that way.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

What's your opinion on WordAlone's memorial to suggest that the vote be a "super" majority instead of a "simple" majority?

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that typically for things to pass through the assembly they required 2/3 but this was made to only require 50%, if that is the case I must absolutely agree with the Word Alone demand. I think it should pass under the same conditions and scrutiny as any other social statement or document on policy within the synod.
pax

 

[D.W.Washburn]

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that typically for things to pass through the assembly they required 2/3 but this was made to only require 50%, if that is the case I must absolutely agree with the Word Alone demand. I think it should pass under the same conditions and scrutiny as any other social statement or document on policy within the synod.
pax

Consider yourself respectfully corrected.

Normally adoption of a Social Statement requires a simple majority. Constitutional changes require a 2/3 majority. WordAlone is petitioning for a 2/3 majority in this case because adoption of the Social Statement and recommendations will effect a change in practice.

A majority of the ELCA Conference of Bishops also supports requiring a 2/3 majority for this vote.

Requiring the super majority will necessitate a change in the rules for the churchwide assembly which itself will require a 2/3 majority.

Personally, I think that WordAlone is afraid it will lose the vote to a simple majority. Though I favor adopting the Social Statement and the task force recommendations, I think that a 2/3 majority would be a good idea in this case. The issues are too contentious to be lost or won by 50% + 1 vote.

Honestly, two-thirds/one-third would be a high price to pay.

In general I don't like local options. I don't think they represent good ecclesiology. But we already, effectively, have a sort of local option about ordination of gays in committed relationships in place. Congregations in some synods can call and ordain pastors living in such circumstances without being censured.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Consider yourself respectfully corrected.

Normally adoption of a Social Statement requires a simple majority. Constitutional changes require a 2/3 majority. WordAlone is petitioning for a 2/3 majority in this case because adoption of the Social Statement and recommendations will effect a change in practice.

A majority of the ELCA Conference of Bishops also supports requiring a 2/3 majority for this vote.

Requiring the super majority will necessitate a change in the rules for the churchwide assembly which itself will require a 2/3 majority.

Personally, I think that WordAlone is afraid it will lose the vote to a simple majority. Though I favor adopting the Social Statement and the task force recommendations, I think that a 2/3 majority would be a good idea in this case. The issues are too contentious to be lost or won by 50% + 1 vote.

Honestly, two-thirds/one-third would be a high price to pay.

In general I don't like local options. I don't think they represent good ecclesiology. But we already, effectively, have a sort of local option about ordination of gays in committed relationships in place. Congregations in some synods can call and ordain pastors living in such circumstances without being censured.

Thank you for the clarification. Would the "recommendation on ministry policies" be considered a constitutional ammendment? Because that seems like it would need the greater vote than the social statement itself (even though the recommendation is drawn from the underpinnings of the social statement).
I do not really know why we pass anything on a simple majority, I was unaware of that. But I think it should ultimately be done how any other similar policy is done. It does not seem right to consider special treatment.
I too think the local option is not a wise one, and while right now it happens on account of the lack of accountability I would hate for it to become a condoned method.
pax

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Thank you for the clarification. Would the "recommendation on ministry policies" be considered a constitutional ammendment? Because that seems like it would need the greater vote than the social statement itself (even though the recommendation is drawn from the underpinnings of the social statement).
I do not really know why we pass anything on a simple majority, I was unaware of that. But I think it should ultimately be done how any other similar policy is done. It does not seem right to consider special treatment.
I too think the local option is not a wise one, and while right now it happens on account of the lack of accountability I would hate for it to become a condoned method.
pax

The recommendations are not being presented as a constitutional amendment, which is why they don't require a 2/3 majority. The argument for a super majority is that the recommendations will have the effect of an amendment...or require one.

And the reason we don't require 2/3 majority for every and all decisions can be summed up in two words: Robert's Rules.

Our Assemblies are conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order.

 

[AngelusSax]

Thank you, D.W. I had been told the ELCA brass had "changed the rules" to get this to pass, but it's good to see that the rules are still the rules, and it's just a misunderstanding between constitutional amendments and social statements, and their respective requirements.

That makes me feel better about the integrity of the process.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Thank you, D.W. I had been told the ELCA brass had "changed the rules" to get this to pass, but it's good to see that the rules are still the rules, and it's just a misunderstanding between constitutional amendments and social statements, and their respective requirements.

That makes me feel better about the integrity of the process.

to that!

 

[servingtheking]

I'm fascinated that no one actually went to the constitution for themselves.


Taken from the ELCA website:

12.12.01. A social statement, which is developed by the appropriate churchwide unit
and presented to the Churchwide Assembly as a proposed social statement
of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, shall require for adoption
a vote of two-thirds of those voting members present and voting in a
Churchwide Assembly. The text of a proposed social statement shall be
approved and recommended to the assembly by the Church Council.


Check it out

 

[servingtheking]

The link for the download is here
Page Not Found - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

and the general site where the constitution can be found is here
Constitutions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

 

[servingtheking]

The link for the download is here
http://www.elca.org/~/media/Files/W...sBylawsandContinuingResolutionsApril2008.ashx

and the general site where the constitution can be found is here
Constitutions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

 

[D.W.Washburn]

You are right. I was mistaken. That's the problem when working from memory.

However it is the recommendations of the task force that can be passed with a simple majority and which a number of parties, including the majority of the Conference of Bishops, are requesting a super majority to pass.

I fully expect that the Rules of the Assembly will be amended to require a 2/3 majority for the passage of the recommendations.

 

[soccerguy2594]

Personally, I think that WordAlone is afraid it will lose the vote to a simple majority. Though I favor adopting the Social Statement and the task force recommendations, I think that a 2/3 majority would be a good idea in this case. The issues are too contentious to be lost or won by 50% + 1 vote.

Because of the controversial nature of this whole thing I was in favor of the 2/3rd "super" majority. But...then I had a conversation with a congregation member who is in politics. He told me that "there is no such thing as a 'super' majority. A 2/3rd's vote is actually "rule by the minority.'" That changed my mind. I think the Word ALone people are afraid that there are enough votes to get a 50% +1, but they don't think there is enough for 66% + 1. So, in essence, they want a minority to win.

 

[soccerguy2594]

I'm fascinated that no one actually went to the constitution for themselves.

Taken from the ELCA website:

12.12.01. A social statement, which is developed by the appropriate churchwide unit
and presented to the Churchwide Assembly as a proposed social statement
of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, shall require for adoption
a vote of two-thirds of those voting members present and voting in a
Churchwide Assembly. The text of a proposed social statement shall be
approved and recommended to the assembly by the Church Council.

Check it out

To my knowledge, the proposals being voted on have nothing to do with the "social statement." They are just action items for how to go forward. So, I could see that to accept the social statement would be 2/3rds, but not the recommendations. REMEMBER: the task force was given TWO jobs. #1 make a social statement. #2 make recommendations on how to proceed.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Because of the controversial nature of this whole thing I was in favor of the 2/3rd "super" majority. But...then I had a conversation with a congregation member who is in politics. He told me that "there is no such thing as a 'super' majority. A 2/3rd's vote is actually "rule by the minority.'" That changed my mind. I think the Word ALone people are afraid that there are enough votes to get a 50% +1, but they don't think there is enough for 66% + 1. So, in essence, they want a minority to win.

Excellent point.

Though I favor the recommendations, I think that 50% + 1 is too small a majority to carry them. I agree, and think I said earlier, that WordAlone thinks it would lose to a simple majority.

I was reading the News pages in the latest Lutheran magazine today, it seems that most Synods are sending memorials to Churchwide urging adoption of the task force's recommendations. I spent a little time looking for a source that might put all of the synods' actions into a single chart, but haven't found it yet.

Bishop Hanson has requested 50 days of prayer leading up to the Churchwide Assembly. I know I'm praying that whatever action is taken, it will be in keeping with the will of God, and that the unity of the church can be preserved.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Bishop Hanson has requested 50 days of prayer leading up to the Churchwide Assembly. I know I'm praying that whatever action is taken, it will be in keeping with the will of God, and that the unity of the church can be preserved.

Although, it is enough for true unity of the church that there the gospel is preached harmoniously according to a pure understanding and the sacraments are administered in conformity with the divine Word.

Sorry...couldn't resist myself, had to throw it in there.

Pax

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Although, it is enough for true unity of the church that there the gospel is preached harmoniously according to a pure understanding and the sacraments are administered in conformity with the divine Word.

Sorry...couldn't resist myself, had to throw it in there.

Pax

Christian unity is not equivalent to institutional cohesion.

Nor is institutional preservation a worthy goal in and of itself.

But, there is a human toll to be counted and this, most of all, is what bothers me.

By the way, I have no doubt that, should the recommendations be defeated, there will still come a time, not too far away, when the ordination of homosexuals in committed relationships will be officially recognized by our church.

 

[mnphysicist]

I was reading the News pages in the latest Lutheran magazine today, it seems that most Synods are sending memorials to Churchwide urging adoption of the task force's recommendations. I spent a little time looking for a source that might put all of the synods' actions into a single chart, but haven't found it yet.

Me neither... and I figured for sure, someone would have done so... Perhaps I'll sit down and do so this weekend.