Pastor Bill's 2005 Churchwide Assembly Reports

Some Time to Think and Respond to Lodi News-Sentinel Article

2005-08-29T21:49:00.000-07:00

I'm working on sharing some thoughts about the Lodi News-Sentinel August 27, 2005, article, but mainly I want to share some of the responses I've received after being back from the Assembly. Should have them posted in a few days. Thanks for your patience.

Entry #21: August 28, 2005

2005-08-28T20:05:00.000-07:00

The Lodi News-Sentinal published a follow-up article on the Assembly and, more particularly, my participation.

Click here to read it.

Entry #20: The Flight Home

2005-08-15T22:58:00.000-07:00

I'm sitting at an airport bar (one beer only) and have been watching golf while thunder storms have moved into Orlando International Airport. My flight is delayed and so I've pulled out my pda keyboard and, while waiting, will write a bit.

The thunder actually reminds me of the vote on the homosexuality recommendations. While we were debating, there must have been a huge thunder storm outside, because even inside the convention center and ball room you could hear the blasts of thunder! Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying in any way that there was some sign in all of this, although as soon as the vote was over, I didn't hear any more thunder. Ha Ha.

Without a doubt, we ELCA Lutherans are a diverse group. My best friend from high school is on his internship, moving toward becoming a pastor in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. David was in a conversation with some of his colleagues who were bemoning how far "off track" the ELCA is, especially our pondering change regarding homosexuality. He called me to see what was up with my beloved ELCA. It was a good conversation, but I shared with him what I often say to people: "The ELCA isn't a 'liberal' Church; it is a diverse Church." I've experienced that diversity now in a way I hadn't before. As I have said before, this is both a joy and a real pain!

There will be some talk of a "split" and a new Church forming, but I doubt the decisions of Orlando will push the orthodox or progressive folks out. Sounds like the Solid Rock folks are all about staying in and fighting the fight. I know that the Goodsoil folks are not going anywhere. Goodsoil was passing out pamphlets, basically saying they were very pleased with what they accomplished. I heard one person say that 95% of what they had hoped to accomplish had been achieved.

I suppose that both groups will now try and spin the votes at the Assembly in their favor. Regarding any group that would split off, these grouops haven't really had much of a track record. One Pastor I met at the Asssembly put it this way: "All the creeks that shoot off from the Church eventually dry up." Hmmm. What will the Lutheran landscape look like in another ten years?

There was a constant emphasis at this Assembly on the fact that our unity is not found in agreeing on "issues," but, rather, it is found in our Baptism and is a gift, not something we achieve. No doubt about this; however, I found myself wondering how much disagreement you can have in an organization before it evolves from being healthy to destructive. I can tell you that, on the issue of homosexuality, I think we are quite close to moving beyond a healthy tension and, fortunately or unfortunately, the Assembly didn't do too much to settle things one way or another. Of course, for many reasons, what the Assembly did was probably the best thing. No matter what we did, we were going to hurt somebody.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Our flight has taken off now and, interestingly, since our flight was delayed, we took off right as the sun was setting and we are now flying into the sunset. The sun has been setting now for about an hour and a half! When will the sun set on this issue? Probably not for a long time, and, as it is on this flight, it is going to be a bumpy ride.

Bishop Hanson has worked very hard, along with the Synodical Bishops and Churchwide staff, to hold this Church together. (They wouldn't like the term "hold together" because, as they have constantly said, Christ is the one who holds us together. Nevertheless, let's just use that term for a minute on a practical level.) I saw that in his parting words to the Assembly which were very moving. I hope and pray that all of our efforts to hang in together will be blessed and be a blessing. "Maintain the bond of unity," Paul says in Ephesians. Perhaps it is best to say Bishop Hanson, et. al. have worked really hard to "maintain" our bond.

The controversy on homosexuality is fading from my thoughts somewhat now, and I'm thinking about something even more important. When focusing on the business of the Assembly, one's personal relationship to Jesus Christ is not a major focus, nor is one's personal family life. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying those subjects weren't addressed, but the main focus was on one's global and local call to be Jesus' hands and feet to the poor and oppressed. Who can argue with taking care of the poor?!

But I think this observation, as inaccurate as it might be, gets at the real crisis in the ELCA: Do we agree -- and when I say agree, I don't just refer to intellectual assent, but I reference our passion, our "when the rubber meets the road," gut level -- on what we are all about? When I listened to the preaching at the worship services (by the way, having the Eucharist every day in the middle of the day was cool) and Bishop Hanson's parting words, and when I talk to fellow pastors, I hear the "social Gospel" way more than an Evangelical "justified by grace" Gospel. Bishop Hanson, in his report and opening sermon, clearly had our social concerns flowing out of the forgiveness we have freely received. All was in the right place, but, again, the passion seems to be focused on social issues. Such concern is part of our ELCA's constitution.

Again, such concern is obviously good and right. So the purpose of this diatribe is to say that I think we need to have a summit about what we believe the fundamental Gospel to be. We can talk about how we interpret the Bible, and even disagree there, but we have to have a clear understanding of the core Gospel. We have it on paper, but I'm not sure we have it in reality, in the hearts and minds of the leaders of this Church.

Perhaps I'm advocating that we go back to the many Lutheran streams that led into the ELCA and revisit one of the pietist movements. It would be awesome to have a Church that had the focus of the Evangelicals (personal relationship to Christ and support for the family) and the strong commitment to social ministry that we have in the ELCA. Of course, as I write this, I know there are those prophet-pastors in our ELCA for whom the ELCA'a commitment to care for the poor and oppressed is still greatly lacking.

Wow, an incredible lightning display is going on down below me! I don't think I've seen anything like it! And if I'm not mistaken, I think we have to land down there in that storm! Yup, into the clouds we go. Perhaps this, too, is a good metaphor. With all this talking, thinking, and voting, rainbow stoles, pamphlets, and stickers, it's time to get back down into the storms of life: personal, communal, and global. I think of all those lay people and pastors sitting together in the Assembly hall, all working together amid the storms of life and this broken world, and, truly, I'm awful glad I'm not alone, but I've got some partners down there in the storm, on the ground, in the trenches. Jesus is, thanks be to God, always there.

Finally, as we approach Sacramento and I look down at the lights of this immense city, our Assembly looks awfully small. Now I'm thinking of how big our mission of bringing Christ to the world is. I simply pray that somehow, the work of this Assembly will advance that mission. God help us.

PB out.

Hope my journal has been helpful.

Peace.

Entry #19: Final Thoughts From Orlando

2005-08-14T08:39:00.000-07:00

August 14, 2005

Well, the days have been long and we have worked hard. Haven't had any time to venture out to see some of the attractions. Oh, well.

Yesterday and this morning we continue to deal with various issues. Yesterday, we worked hard on the Strategy for Engagement in Israel and Palestine. What we passed was much more balanced than the recommedation that came out originally in our preassembly packet. One of the voting members from our Synod worked hard with the representatives from the Church Council and made some changes before it was brought to the Assembly. On the floor an amendment was offered that made even greater changes, but that was defeated. The original proposal did pass.

We've worked on memorials. I think I'm figuring out the process which I won't try and explain (a way that our Synods try to advise the Churchwide Assembly). I will say that I don't really think it is worth all the work Synods put into memorials. Especially now, as the Assembly is running out of energy. Most of the time the Memorials Committee recommends that the Assembly refer them to some committee.

The Churchwide Assembly again resoundingly defeated any suggestion that it grant "ratifying" responsibility to Synods or congregations. As I've mentioned, I think that, for many reasons, this is a good idea. I guess our full Communion relationship with the Presbyterian Church (the Presbyterian Church does have a ratification System) will not be allowed to affect (or for those who know the language of the agreement, "admonish") us or influence us in this area. I think the reason it fails is because those putting the idea of ratification forward are perceived as doing it out of distrust of the churchwide organization. For me, it isn't distrust that motivates my support but, rather, a desire for congregations to feel and see that their voice matters and counts. Anyway, it's an idea that is dead in the water.

There was a very touching moment at the closing of the Assembly as thank you's were given. When we got to Bishop Hanson, he received a very long standing ovation. He asked his wife to come forward and thanked her for her support. It was very moving and beautiful. The Bishop's final words were tinged with deep emotion and there were many tears.

I am tired. For those of you who have gone to Synod Assemblies, imagine doing that work for 6 days! Overall, I have to say that I am weary of hearing from some of the people who are quick to get to the microphones and from which we have heard way too much!

As far as my overall thoughts on the Assembly go, it's going to take me quite awhile to process all that has gone on.

As I read the media reports on the Assembly which are, of course, focused on the homosexuality resolutions, it is clear that no one really knows how to interpret the resolutions passed. Seems like most articles I'm reading are focused on the "no" to granting exceptions allowing non-celibate gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered pastors to serve congregations. I guess that we will just have to see how this Assembly's work is interpreted and will affect what Bishops and congregations do.

I'll write one more entry when I get home. I am pleased and priviliged to be part of a great group from the Sierra Pacific Synod. We all took our duties very seriously and conscientiously.

God bless us and keep us.

Entry #18: August 13, 2005

2005-08-13T06:56:00.000-07:00

A few thoughts on the overall Assembly.

Bishop Hanson truly does a great job chairing the Assembly. He is very pastoral and, at the same time, keeps the Assembly moving in the right direction. Lots of humor and laughter. After the discussion on the homosexuality studies, the Assembly gave the Bishop a standing ovation for the way he handled the discussion and the "protest." Lowell Almen, our secretary, truly does have a wonderful dry wit. I have to celebrate the wonderful worship services, even though the preaching sometimes . . . well, I won't go there . . .

The music was awesome. The way the Assembly is handled is first class in my experience.

Moreover, when you hear of all the ministries internationally and nationally that are part of the ELCA, it is a wonder and amazing. A privilege to be here.
As the rep from the Lutheran Church in Canada ("LCIC") spoke, I learned today that the LCIC, at their last Assembly, defeated a local option to bless same gender unions 54 to 45%. I guess that, from what I've heard about Canada, that surprised me a bit.

Today we have the Recommendation regarding the ELCA's Strategy for Engagement in Israel and Palestine. A Jewish organization, CAMERA: Committe for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, took out a huge add in USA Today (August 12) stating that the voting mmbers of this Synod are being asked to "support an ant-Israel resolution." The Assembly has now asked that the Lutheran Palestinian Bishop of Jordon speak to the Assembly. It will be an interesting discussion and another one that many people are watching. More prayers needed.

Entry #17: August 12, 2005

2005-08-12T20:55:00.000-07:00

As I read the media's treatment of today's events, I'd just like to clarify that we did not "soften" or open the door to blessing same-sex unions. We did what the resolution says: The assembly had an amendment before it that clearly supported pastors being able to bless same-sex unions and the Assembly defeated it something like 60% - 40%. However, they also rejected an amendment that specifically excluded blessing unions from "pastoral care."

So the best thing I can say is: We said what we said. The articles below are very good summeries of the event of the day.

ELCA: Gay ordination defeated
Bob Von Sternberg, Star Tribune
August 13, 2005

ORLANDO, FLA. -- In the end, the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians was a step that members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America weren't willing to take.

After years of impassioned struggle over the tangled topic of human sexuality, the ELCA's Churchwide Assembly rejected a proposal Friday that would have indirectly opened the door to such ordinations, in place of the current policy, which allows the ordination only of celibate gays and lesbians.

That decision was the climax of an assembly that had come to be dominated by sexuality issues and occurred after delegates agreed to make it easier for pastors to bless gay and lesbian unions and overwhelmingly voted to "live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements" about homosexual behavior and its proper role in the church.

The bruising sexuality issue, which has convulsed several Protestant denominations, has placed the ELCA in a media spotlight.

Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson acknowledged that spotlight when he opened Friday's session: "Seemingly the whole world is paying attention to religious communities who are engaged in discussions about sexuality."

After Friday's three votes and more than six hours of intense debate, Hanson said, "you witnessed a church today that continued a conversation it has had the last four years -- it's not whether gays and lesbians are welcomed in this church. ... We have other work ahead of us."

Specifically, the ELCA still has a long slog ahead of it on the issue of sexuality.

It has yet to develop a formal social statement on homosexuality, a document that it has produced on several other issues such as abortion and the death penalty. That statement is to be presented at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis.

Advocates on both sides of the sexuality issue made it clear that the fight is far from over.

"That was not fun for anybody today, and by the time it was over, everybody needed a hug," said Phil Soucy, a spokesman for Goodsoil, a coalition of six organizations pushing for full recognition of gays and lesbians in the ELCA. "But we're not leaving. We're not going away, and we'll be back tomorrow."

Members of the WordAlone Network, a Twin Cities-based coalition opposed to the changes in church policies, also expressed dissatisfaction, saying in a statement that the church has "propped the door open for blessing of homosexual relationships."

That proposal passed on a 607-323 vote and does not explicitly give a green light to blessing ceremonies.

There appeared to be a softening of the language on same-sex unions, because the proposal originally had said the ELCA "would entrust pastors and congregations to discern ways to provide faithful pastoral care to same-sex couples." The adopted amendment replaced the words "same-sex couples" with "all to whom they minister."

After the vote, church officials said the change was not substantive. The bishops for the Twin Cities, Peter Rogness (St. Paul) and Craig Johnson (Minneapolis), spoke strongly in favor of the proposal before it was amended.

Ordination proposl

By far the most controversial proposal was the one that would have permitted the ordination of gays and lesbians in committed, long-term relationships, an issue that has deeply divided the church.

The delegates soundly rejected the ordination proposal, voting 503 against and 490 in favor. A two-thirds majority was needed for passage. But the closeness of the overall vote was cited by the Rev. Roy Riley, chairman of the church's Conference of Bishops, as evidence that the task force that developed the proposal had done its job well.

"We were pretty sure we weren't going to get to a two-thirds majority, but nearly 50 percent voted for it in that room," he said. "It's a great validation for the task force."

Reiterating arguments that have been made during the weeklong assembly and the years of study that preceded it, members dug deep into scripture and questions of fairness in arguing their cases.

Louis Hesse of the Eastern Washington-Idaho Synod said those arguing for gay ordination had not made a convincing theological or scientific argument on why they were right.

"The case has not been made," said Hesse. "I've heard a lot of talk about the gospel here today, and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm in the right church. A gospel of full acceptance, accepting everyone the way they are, what does that say about sinfulness?"

The Rev. G. Scott Cady of the New England Synod argued that rejecting gays who feel a call to ministry amounts to questioning the will of God. "We have vacant pulpits and altars in congregations all over this country," he said. "We have people crying out for pastoral care. The Holy Spirit has said, 'All right, here they are. Here they are.' Are we going to now say, 'Thanks Holy Spirit, but we prefer something else?' "

Compared with the two most contentious resolutions, the initial one, which called on members to essentially agree to disagree about homosexuality, was approved easily, 851-127.

Even so, it was overshadowed by lingering fears that the entire sexuality debate could ultimately rip the church to shreds, prompting parishioners and entire parishes to bail out of the denomination.

The Rev. Paul Harris of Eagan's Easter Lutheran Church obliquely referred to those fears: "Many will find themselves conscience-bound by their understanding of the Holy Spirit to leave this community," he said. "We would do well to wish these people well and bless them even though they are not able to be part of this church."

Afternoon protest

The sole unscripted episode of this week's tightly scripted assembly occurred Friday afternoon, shortly after delegates began debating the resolution about ordination.

The assembly was thrown into chaos for about a half-hour as about 100 gay and lesbian advocates wearing rainbow stoles marched to the front of the ballroom and stood in front of the lectern, defying the assembly's rules.

They repeatedly ignored Hanson's request that they return to a visitors area. After several procedural moves failed, debate resumed with protesters in front of the hall for the remainder of the session.

Trying to avoid a confrontation that would have led to the forcible removal of the protesters, Hanson tried to get the assembly back on track, saying, "We have a series of choices, none of which are good," adding, "there's some benefit to being a parent of six. Sometimes it's better to ignore attention-getting behavior."

One delegate yelled, "We're on your side, bishop."

"They were going to have to vote, looking at us right in the eye," said the Rev. Paul Egerston, a retired bishop from southern California who was among the protesters. "These people want to be fully accepted in the church."

Another of the protesters, Karmi Mattson of Minneapolis, said she will "stay in the church and keep working for change. I pray that God will be able to finally do a new thing with this church."

They remained standing as Hanson brought the sexuality debate to an end, calling for assembly members to sing "Beautiful Savior." The protesters, some weeping, broke their silence to sing it.

Press Release from the Sierra-Pacific Synod

2005-08-12T20:21:00.000-07:00

The Rev. David G. Mullen, Bishop
Sierra Pacific Synod, ELCA
Oakland, CA
August 12, 2005

ELCA Vote Says No to Gay and Lesbians Seeking Ordination

By a vote of 490 to 503 the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in Orlando, Florida, voted down a recommendation that the church find a way to include openly gay and lesbian leaders on the roster of the church.

The vote is disappointing to many Lutherans in the Sierra Pacific Synod who had hoped to see at least some movement forward toward the acceptance of gay and lesbians persons as rostered leaders in the church. For others in the synod, as for many others throughout the ELCA, the vote was a positive affirmation of traditional understandings of scripture, tradition, and current church policy and practice.

Stated Bishop Mullen, “The vote, affirming a traditional view of homosexuality, will in no way make the issue go away. I hope that we will honor the hard work that has been done leading up to the vote and continue to work toward greater inclusivity, while not neglecting the overall mission of the Church.”

According to Bishop Mullen, the issue of homosexuality and of gay and lesbian persons being leaders in the church has been debated and discussed for over 15 years in the Sierra Pacific Synod, which includes the Bay Area, northern California and northern Nevada. Most synodical votes in recent have resulted in close counts, with the majority affirming moves toward the inclusion of gay and lesbian leaders on the roster of the ELCA.

The ELCA, comprised of 65 synods and about 11,000 congregations, has engaged in an honorable and public process of study and dialogue since the 2001 Churchwide Assembly, which placed the issue of blessing same sex unions and the ordination of homosexuals on the agenda of the church, and led to the formation of a Sexuality Task Force. Input from nearly thirty thousand ELCA Lutherans was received by that Task Force, which had been given the responsibility of offering recommendations to the church.

The Task Force forwarded to the ELCA church council three recommendations: a pledge to see church unity in spite of differences; affirmed the Conference of Bishops’ statement on the blessing of same sex marriages, and in a carefully nuanced third recommendation, asked for the possibility of finding a way to include gay and lesbian leaders on the roster of the ELCA, while not officially altering stated church policy. The first two recommendations passed.

The Task Force recommendations were approved by ELCA Church Council and with carefully crafted constitutional language to implement recommendation three, were placed before the Churchwide Assembly, and were voted down.

Bishop Mullen stated, “We need to be noticing in a deep way the strong voices of faithful, thoughtful Lutheran on either side of the homosexuality issue. I believe that everyone intends to be faithful Christians, and have the best interests of the church at heart. We have not been able to reach a consensus.”

It is Bishop Mullen’s view that in spite of the outcomes of voting, which often which suggest division, who won or lost at this particular time is far less important than the vital task of seeking to discern the will of God, and of continuing to work toward mutual respect, understanding, and acceptance as a sign of Christ’s church in the world.

“I intend to urge everyone in my synod and across the ELCA to engage in the spiritual practice of living more deeply into the reality of the church as the body of Christ. It is God’s willl, not ours, that must and will prevail,” said Bishop Mullen.

Entry #16: August 12, 2005

2005-08-12T19:53:00.000-07:00

Today was amazing, difficult, exhausting, and now it's over!

To check the official voting results, see the ELCA website.

My summary is as follows:

We easily passed the first resolution calling for us to "find ways to live together..."

All attempts to amend the second proposal were defeated except for the change in language in the last resolved from "same sex couples" to "all to whom they minister." I spoke just before debate was closed on this amendment, supporting it, as the change made the pastoral care more inclusive and not just a focus on "couples."

If anything, the change moved away from the interpretation of some that the term "pastoral care" was an open door for pastors to bless same sex unions. The vote to make this change was very close: 491 in favor, 484 against. With that amendment, the resolution pasted easily.

We defeated all amendments to the third recommendation, i.e., a resolution creating a process by which non-celibate gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered people could be ordained and called to a congregation. Right after the first amendment was defeated, at least fifty people marched into the front of the Assembly and stood quietly in ecclesiastical disobedience. The Bishop asked them to leave, but they did not. After a long disruption and some people complaining from the microphones, the Bishop asked the Assembly to vote on his suggestion that we go on with our business. He also told them that he was very disappointed in them. We did go on with our business. The only problem is that a few of the pro-change folks referred to the protestors and, in that sense, the Assembly may have been swayed by their presence (not fair), but I think it probably lost them votes which, at this point, evidently did not concern them. They could see that they would not get the two-thirds' vote needed, given the number of votes cast that easily defeated the amendments calling for an even greater change than the one proposed by the Church Council.

The vote was taken on the third recommendation: It failed 51% to 49%. Wow! I was shocked, given the amendments were all defeated by close to a two-thirds' margin.

My interpretation: The Assembly walked the absolute middle of the road. They refused to endorse the blessing of same-sex, unions but they also refused to clarify the second recommendation so that it would be clear that the term "pastoral care" did not include same-sex unions.

So, after years of work, the Assembly voted to basically keep things the way they have been.

Will Bishops now feel they need to call pastors and congregations to abide by our current policies, or will the actions taken at this Assembly simply keep things up in the air?

One amendment to the last recommendation relating to pastors, which was the only more "conservative" amendment, failed something like 40% to 60%.

At that point, I knew that there were not going to be two-thirds' votes cast in favor, but I was most interested in the vote.

So the big votes have happened and, unfortunately, they turned out to not be big at all.

From my view, all is still the same as it was. Bishops and pastors will do as they please. If one reads our policy regarding pastors and the second statement we passed today, they will clearly believe the ELCA holds basically to a traditional position. However, that is not the way it is put into practice.

The fact that the vote to open ordination got nearly 50% of the votes says, however, that the Goodsoil folks are making definite progress and, even if we are uncertain about where we are today, it is clear to me where we are going . . . for better or worse.

I will say that the Assembly did a good job of being Christ-like and respectful of each other. The arguments from the floor were sometimes well done on both sides, and sometimes not.

Peace,

PB

Entry #15: Results of the First Vote

2005-08-12T07:12:00.000-07:00

First recommendation regarding "living together dispite our differences" passed easily: 87% to 13%.

Entry #14: The Night Before the Big Vote

2005-08-11T21:58:00.000-07:00

O.k., for those who want the actual specifics, there are lots of web sites that will give you the "news." I know that the ELCA website has a ton of information.

If you want the perspectives from both sides, do a search for Goodsoil or Solid Rock Lutherans. I'm told there is a "verbatim" of the Committee of the whole at www.foclnews.org.

I have figured out that the person making the motion regarding the order in which amendments will be considered was one of the submitters of an amendment that would move the Church in a pro-gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgered ("glbt") direction. I tell ya what: The glbt lobby is smart and, ya know, I'm really sick of the games. Yet, I trust that God is at work in, with, and under our human frailty and, somehow, amidst all the politics, will work for good.

Something that has really bugged me for a long time is the ELCA Leadership's insistance that the ELCA does not have a "policy" on same-sex unions because the ELCA, since its inception, has not officially passed a new social statement or policy on the subject. I suppose that this might be true "officially," but given that the social statements of the church bodies that formed the ELCA clearly said that homosexual acts were a departure from God's intent as to sexuality, to say that we don't have a "policy" is disengenuous, at best. We don't have an official "policy" on stealing, either, but I'm pretty sure that our Church's position on stealing is that it is wrong. Fine, we don't have an official policy, but don't belittle my intellegence by speaking like the Church doesn't have a position on the subject. It is this type of thing that makes one distrustful of leadership. But I'll be darned if I'm going to go there! I'm going to try and put the actions of others in the kindest of lights, and not disparage the motivations of the Churchwide organization.

Both camps have met. Strategies are set, I'm sure. Tomorrow we vote and, as has become clear, the rest of the world and nation are watching.

I will judge all proposals by this question: "How does this action edify the Church and advance the Gospel?''

Good night!

Entry #13: August 11, 2005

2005-08-11T21:03:00.000-07:00

The big news today is that the Assembly adopted an amendment to expand the ELCA Church Council to 65 members - having one member from every Synod (65 Synods). It was a close vote: 52% to 48%. The discussion was good. The case was made that having a Council member from every Synod would help with the "disconnect" between the churchwide organization and congregations, and make the Council more representative of all the Church. Others argued against it, saying it will be cumbersome and difficult for the Council to function.

This is the first time, I think, that the Assembly has gone against a proposal of the Churchwide staff at this Assembly. I voted for the change and addition. I think we have to make some effort to spread power out to the Synods and congregations. This is one helpful step.

The Bylaws, of course, once amended, need a two-thirds' majority vote to be enacted. It will be voted on later; this evening, perhaps. So we are not finished with this yet!

I'm getting nervous as it is now Thursday, and we have a ton of decisions that are yet to be made!

Entry #12: August 11, 2005

2005-08-11T19:54:00.000-07:00

Spent more time this morning debating the restructuring proposal and, in particular, the way the new proposal will remove the Commission for Women and spread advocacy for women throughout the churchwide organization.

Amendments to, in essence "put the Commission back" (my words) in some fashion were rejected pretty soundly by the Assembly. However, amendments were passed putting responsibility/accountability on the ELCA Church Council for how well this new way of addressing the concerns of women is working. I believe this also included an official evaluative report.

Anyway, my summary is that the disagreements are NOT regarding the urgency of the NEED for further advocacy for women in the ELCA, but as to how this concern will be structured in the ELCA organization. Representatives of the Restructuring proposal continuously have assured the Assembly that advocacy for women was not going to get lost or diminished. Obviously, not all agreed but, again, the Assembly went with the proposed restructuring.

Heard from Eric Yoffie, Reformed Rabbi. He commended the ELCA for being "path setters" in relations between Christians and Jews in the United States. He gave a stirring and powerful message. I wish you could have heard it. Interestingly, his concerns expressed about the culture of America were very similar to the concerns and perspectives of the ELCA leadership when it comes social action. His treatment of what is going on in the Holy Land was the most balanced, insightful, and clear I have ever heard. "We have to let go of hate," he said. I hope his speech is somehow available. It was awesome. He received a long and strong standing ovation.

There is a good dialogue going on about the recommendation that we will consider on Saturday on the ELCA's Engagement in Israel and Palestine. ELCA has a wonderful and strong connection to the Palestinian Lutheran Church in the Holy Land. We have always been good advocates for Palestinian perspectives and there are now some changes being introduced in the proposal to make it more balanced, i.e. seeing the situation not just from the Palestinian perspective, but from the Jewish perspective as well. For example, do we refer to the "Wall" as a "Wall" or a "Barrier," etc. and its impact on the peace process. This, too, will be an interesting discussion. I do know that what we do pass will go to all government leaders involved. This is big time! The Jewish leaders in this country are very interested in what we are going to say as the ELCA, especially in light of the Presbyterian church's recent one-sided action.

There are a lot of important things going on beyond the sexuality decisions!

Now we go to worship and we will have an hour to vote on all the different positions in the Churchwide organization, Church Council , etc.

Entry #11: August 10, 2005

2005-08-10T14:40:00.000-07:00

A couple of personal notes:

Sandy and Emanuel folks, I ran into Dr. Tom Rogers (Homiletics Professor, Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary) and extended my greetings from Emanuel. Sandy, I also ran into Dr. Pam Jolequer from California Lutheran University. Had a nice conversation. She says "hi." Ran into Herb Chilstrom, former Bishop of the ELCA -- extended my greetings from Lodi.

This afternoon we heard the recommendations on Arab and Middle Eastern Ministry and African Descent Ministry Strategies. We also heard from an ELCA Military Chaplin who has served in Iraq. The Assembly gave him a standing ovation. There was also a long and energetic ovation for the other chaplins in the Assembly.

Youth Convocation made a presentation and said they were looking to us to be their examples of Christ-like living, particularly as to how we debate at the Assembly. Interesting. A very good, energetic presentation. They put forth a challenge to every Synod to elect one (1) youth as a voting member for the 2007 Churchwide Assembly. That, as I remember it, received a standing ovation.

We also considered memorials from Synods, which brought up various topics.

Great to see the concern from our Church regarding hunger and justice, particularly for African nations.

We have tonight off. I'm going to get to the gym!

Peace, all!

Entry #10: August 10, 2005

2005-08-10T12:46:00.000-07:00

Well, we dove big time into the Renewing Worship issues today. Motions were offered to delay the vote because of some problems perceived with the process. Mainly, folks are concerned about theology and especially inclusive language.

Oh . . . in case you don't know what inclusive language is . . . Generally, it is the removal of masculine pronouns for God and limiting the use of masculine images for God, i.e. "King," "Lord," etc. It would also include using the more feminine images for God that are found in the scriptures.

However, all proposals were voted down by something like 60% to 30%. Those wanting to stop or change the process were fighting a losing battle. The Assembly clearly lost its patience with the efforts to stop or change the process.

Many speakers have cited specific changes in texts that, if true, frankly, I found rather shocking. I think there is a wide spectrum with regard to inclusive language. I can say that these issues will certainly hinder the use of such a resource in my home congregation. I'd say I'm in the middle of the spectrum when it comes to "inclusivizing" our worship language.

However, the worship staff and presenters of the proposal strongly stated that there is a balance in the use of inclusive language. So where will these new worship materials fall within the spectrum of inclusive language use? As a voting member who has had some limited exposure to the materials, I am unsure. Really just left having to trust or not trust the worship staff, and Churchwide organization. I guess, for some, there in lies the problem.

The proposal passed 75% to 25%! Wow, I wasn't surprised that it passed, but this is a big margin. Can anything be gleaned from this vote about how the vote will go for the sexuality proposals?

By the way, the color of the new hymnal will be red. I really have to wonder, though, if many congregations will even use it given the digital age in which we live.

Did you know that ELCA congregating have given more than 10 million dollars toward Tsunami relief?

Yes, we are now into the budget . . .

Peace,

Pastor Bill

Entry #9: August 10, 2005 (Morning)

2005-08-10T09:35:00.000-07:00

The "big vote" is scheduled now for Friday morning and we will have a "committee of the whole" on Thursday night (a discussion where no amendments are offered). The deadline for submitting amendments to the proposals is tomorrow morning.

Goodsoil (glbt) and Solid Rock Lutherans are both submitting amendments to the proposals.

Lots of strategizing on both sides, of course.

Entry #8: August 9, 2005 (Evening)

2005-08-09T22:00:00.000-07:00

I went to two (2) hearings today: One on the restructuring proposal and -- I couldn't resist -- I had to hear more on the proposals relating to homosexuality.

At the governance hearing, many folks where concerned about the proposal putting too much work and authority in the hands of the Church Council. I made the point (not really received well, sorry to say! Oh well!) that some sort of congregational ratification of social statements, policies, and ecumenical agreements should be introduced into the life of the ELCA. "Too cumbersome" was the response of the representatives of the Church Council. I don't think it would be too cumbersome if the ratification was only required when a two-thirds' majority vote is not attained on certain decisions that could be clearly defined. (See my prior entry for more information on my thoughts about this). There were also major concerns expressed by some people because the restructuring removes the commission on women and spreads/respreads responsibility for those concerns out among about four (4) other groups.

In regard to the hearing on the proposals dealing with homosexuality:

I heard that the Task Force, and perhaps Church Council, too, view the first proposal (stating that we would find ways to live together -- agree to disagree on the issue) as one that, if passed, is basically the Assembly's way of stating that our differences on this issue should not be Church-dividing. Hmmm . . . helpful to know.

The Task Force and Church Council were hammered hard by the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered ("glbt") "full inclusion" folks. They also took hits from the conserving folks, but not as bad.

The hammering they took from the glbt folks made me sad. It is somewhat ironic, as it would seem to me that the Task Force and Church Council worked really hard to bring to the table proposals that would move the Church to a new place, and certainly in their direction. Obviously, the recommendations are not good enough. I guess that, at this point, it hurts when either side speaks so forcefully (yes, passion for one's cause is good, as is standing up for what is right, etc.).

My question is: Where is the humility and a sense that one might not have the truth completely figured out? Lots of people are making the usual arguments that I've heard over and over, and they still tear at my heart and mind. I can say that I'm tired of the glbt folks saying that the opposing side doesn't believe in God's grace, etc.

Anyway, wow! It is going to be an incredible vote if the Assembly goes ahead and votes on this issue.

That's it for today! Keep me in your prayers.

Entry # 7: August 9, 2005 (Afternoon)

2005-08-09T21:46:00.000-07:00

Today is mostly about receiving information.

The Bishop's report was excellent. Was a wonderful presentation of the Gospel as "Justification," "forgiveness," and fleshed out each part of our name: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. All of the wonderful work of the ELCA on social needs and issues clearly flowed out of the Gospel, as it should. I encourage all to read it on the ELCA's website. Interestingly, I thought it was received . . . hmmm . . . well, I guess I'd say cautiously. He did receive a standing ovation at the end, however. I say "cautiously," because there were definite places throughout his presentation where he made points with lots of energy that where not followed up with an equally energetic response by the Assembly.

Incredible worship service today. "When Peace Like a River" was sung by the whole Assembly more beautifully than I'd ever heard it. An African-American choir helped lead the worship and provided special music. Simply awesome.

Hearings on all the different proposals are going to begin now. The Assembly just finished debate about the 150-some memorials from Synods.

Now that I've got my internet connection set up, I will be giving you up-to-the-minute reports on the voting. (That information is also accessible on the ELCA's website.)

Entry #6: From Florida!

2005-08-09T12:38:00.000-07:00

We are here and the first worship service and session is complete.

Wonderful opening worship service. Bishop Hanson's sermon was well done and focused on God in Christ establishing the Church and a call to move away from fear. Spoke directly to those who, given the magnitude of certain votes, are afraid that the ELCA will drown because of the votes scheduled. Clearly, the Bishop's message was to convince that the Church will be the Church, regardless of how the votes on homosexuality go. Hmmmm . . . the million dollar question: Is this debate something we can agree to disagree about or does it grow out of fundamental disagreement at the core of our faith? Bishop Hanson clearly wanted to send the message that he does not believe the votes on homosexuality should be a church-fracturing issue. Nonetheless, a powerful and moving presentation of the Gospel and that God would not let us "sink." Indeed, it is good news that God has established each of us as Christians and God has established His Church and will watch over it.

As we begin the first plenary session and enter the main ballroom, "Goodsoil" and gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered ("glbt") folks are very visible and advocating the removal of the two-thirds' majority vote that the ELCA Church Council proposing be adopted for all actions of this Assembly that would affect prior policies of the ELCA regarding homosexuality (that's my summary). The Third proposal must receive a two-thirds' majority vote; evidently, there is no changing that.

My summary of a very long and often confused debate is this:

All of the amendments offered by the glbt folks failed at approximately 63% to 37%. However, the Council's recommendations that the Assembly achieve a two-thirds' vote on any proposals that the Assembly might pass that will conflict with previous policies on the homosexuality issue needed a two-thirds' vote to be adopted, save but for one. The Council's recommendations didn't quite make the two-thirds' needed.

The one rule that passed reads:

"A two-thirds' majority vote of the voting members of the Churchwide Assembly present and voting shall be required to adopt recommendations from a task force report that would establish for this church a new practice or policy that is contrary to an existing policy that has been adopted by the Church Council upon recommendation of a board or committee, as authorized by the constitution or bylaws of this church."

THAT ONE PASSED BY only 1% which I think was only one vote!

What does all this mean? I would venture that the Assembly has expressed pretty clearly that they understand the magnitude of their votes on homosexuality and that two-thirds of the Assembly think a two-thirds' vote should be required to change our Church's positions on this subject. All totaled, we spent about 3.5 hours just talking about the rules for the Assembly. Important stuff ahead!

Good night!

Entry # 5: Clarification of Today's Lodi News-Sentinel Article

2005-08-06T12:17:00.000-07:00

Read the article here.

The first article in our local newspaper on the Assembly and the votes regarding homosexuality was published today. As this blog site was publicized, and there were a couple of important points on which the article (mainly because it is impossible to write a short article on the subject) missed the mark, let me clarify a few items.

1. First, the headline is misleading. We are not voting on “gay rights.” The civil rights of gay and lesbian people are not being addressed. The ELCA has been consistent and very open in its stance against all forms of prejudice and violence directed toward homosexuals. Our Church is addressing the subject of whether we will bless same sex unions and whether people in such unions can serve as pastors in our Congregations.

2. Second, and most importantly, the article stated, “Crabtree said he won’t support a resolution giving ELCA Churches the right to hire openly gay pastors.” I need to offer some very specific clarification of that statement.

I did not use the term “openly gay.” The ELCA’s current position is: If someone believes that their sexual orientation is homosexual, they must remain celibate if they are to serve as a pastor, just as people whose sexual orientation is straight, but who are not in a legally sanctioned marriage, are expected to remain celibate. Marriage continues to be affirmed as the God-given context for sexual intimacy in this Church. Any pastor in the ELCA can be “open” regarding their orientation, but their behavior must abide by the standards set forth in a document called “Visions and Expectations.” I was speaking about a resolution that would allow congregations to extend a Call a non-celibate gay pastor. The distinction is very important as I would never support a pastor's act of concealing their sexual orientation in order to be a pastor.

3. The proposal referred to in the quote is one of three on the issue of homosexuality. It specifically relates to whether the ELCA will allow people in same-sex unions to serve as pastors in an ELCA Congregation. The proposal is:

Create a process for the sake of outreach, ministry, and the commitment to continuing dialogue, which may permit exceptions to the expectations regarding sexual conduct for gay and lesbian candidates and rostered leaders in life-long, committed, and faithful same-sex relationships who otherwise are determined to be in compliance with Vision and Expectations; . . .

In regard to that proposal, I actually told the reporter that at this time I have some major concerns about it and am not “supportive of it.” The proposal would allow exceptions to the normative rule of the Church.

My objection to this proposal is that, in essence, it is saying that even though our Church believes something to be contrary to God’s will, we will allow it for those congregations who disagree. I struggle with it because it is conflicted and confusing. If that proposal is adopted, we will say one thing, but allow another.

However, I also understand that this proposal is offered to try and keep various factions in the ELCA together. That is a good motivation. I also support giving Congregations freedom in their context to do ministry. The problem is that the ELCA’s Constitution clearly indicates one of the ways we will be united as Congregations is that we will Call pastors from the clergy roster of the ELCA. And folks on that roster are expected to hold to a common set of theological beliefs and behaviors. Homosexual erotic behavior in any context is not permitted by those on that roster. In other words, if we are going to say that our ELCA Congregations are untied in Calling pastors who have a common set of beliefs and principals, that position must be maintained by all Congregations. Making exceptions will lead, I fear, to many unanticipated consequences. If we want to give Congregations more freedom to Call pastors not on the ELCA roster, then we should change this part of our Constitution.

In regard to the other proposals, I am currently, for the most part, supportive of them.

The second proposal relates to the blessing of same sex unions, and is as follows:

WHEREAS, this church holds that “marriage is a lifelong covenant of faithfulness between a man and a woman” (Message on Sexuality: Some Common Convictions (1996), page 3); and
WHEREAS, the Conference of Bishops in October 1993 stated, “We, as the Conference of Bishops of the ELCA, recognize that there is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship. We, therefore, do not approve such a ceremony as an official action of this church’s ministry. Nevertheless, we express trust in and will continue dialogue with those pastors and congregations who are in ministry with gay and lesbian persons, and affirm their desire to explore the best ways to provide pastoral care for all to whom they minister” (CB93.10.25); therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America continue to respect the guidance of the 1993 statement of the Conference of Bishops; and be it further
RESOLVED, that this church welcome gay and lesbian persons into its life (as stated in Churchwide Assembly resolutions from 1991, 1995, and 1999), and trust pastors and congregations to discern ways to provide faithful pastoral care to same-sex couples.

I indicated to the reporter that I would be looking for clarification at the Assembly as to how we should understand the phrase “provide faithful pastoral care to same sex couples.” Again, depending on how one interprets this language, we seem to be saying one thing and practicing another.

AS TO HOW I WILL VOTE ON ALL THE PROPOSALS: I will wait and listen to all the debate, see what happens at the Assembly, and then cast my vote.

Entry #4: August 5, 2005

2005-08-05T07:07:00.000-07:00

After reading the entire proposal for renewing worship, I'm struck by the immense amount of work that has gone into this proposal so far. However, I'm left with a number of questions:
What actual group of folks will decide hymns and content of hymns? ELCA Worship staff? Church Council? Office of the Bishop? I could be wrong, but the proposal seems to place the decision in the hands of only a few people, notwithstanding all the groups and people consulted so far.
How far will they go with inclusive language?
I was wondering what criteria will be used in deciding content and was thankful to find this language: "The three general criteria for judging material for public worship and liturgical use shall be fidelity to the Word of God, consistency with the Lutheran confessions, and respect for the nature of the liturgical assembly as the gathering of God's people in a public exercise of the faith. ALL WORSHIP MATERIAL SHALL EXPRESS FAITHFULLY THE BIBLICAL WITNESS AND THE CONFESSIONAL COMMITMENTS OF THIS CHURCH." I wonder, will the hymnal have a good balance between an "Evangelical -- Gospel as justification by grace" focus and a "Social Gospel--strive for justice and peace focus?" -- or -- will it trump the social gospel-liberation theology emphasis to the exclusion of a Confessional/Evangelical focus?

I will seek answers to these questions at the Assembly but, in the meantime, if anyone has input right now, I'm all ears!

Entry #3: August 3, 2005

2005-08-03T19:38:00.000-07:00

More reading! Wow, I’m working hard to be prepared. As those who have attended Assemblies in the past have said, “You get an amazing amount of information.” They are right! But I want to say it is very well organized and developed — a truly impressive and first-class presentation of material. The responsibility of my one -- out of 1,018 -- vote becomes even more pressing as I read the material. I’m pouring through the recommendations on renewing worship now. It’s been great to have a number of folks call me and extend their prayers, and I’ve also sought out many folks to kind of “stuff” my brain with as many perspectives as possible on the big issues.

By the way, since, in my second entry, I was somewhat critical of the proposal regarding restructuring of the ELCA, let me highlight something I see that is very positive! In regard to the election of members of the Church Council, the proposal will require them to respond to a list of questions that will be printed in the Pre-Assembly Report. This is a very important addition. In other words, “more extensive information” will be provided about nominees than is currently the case. We have way too much voting congregationally, synodically, and at the CWA for people about whose backgrounds, perspectives, theology, opinions, etc. we have very little knowledge. This change will help voting members at the CWA truly vote “according to their conscience,” not just according to geography or what their pastor or the person next to them suggests!

Entry #2: July 30, 2005

2005-07-30T23:08:00.000-07:00

Churchwide Organization (Church Governance)

The first thing that captures my attention is the proposals for change in the “Churchwide Organization,” i.e. church governance. You can review the entire proposal here.

I hate to start my blog out on a critical note, but my concerns about these proposals regarding the Churchwide organization are born out of a real desire for people in the pews to have more ownership in this great Church. I have to admit that I am disappointed when I hear that the premises underlying the proposals for change in the ELCA’s governance have a very low view of how informed congregational members are. (This is clearly stated on page 6.) Assembly members are assumed to be better informed and equipped to make decisions for our Church. This may be true. However, I find that if people don’t think their involvement matters, they don’t get involved. Congregations and congregational members will rise, just like any individual, to what is expected of them. I can pretty much guarantee that we’d triple the involvement of church members in issues facing the ELCA if they thought that they had some substantive input. Other denominations have a balance of national and local expression. I wish the ELCA would consider it. Whether it is intended or not, the premises come across sounding elitist and even arrogant. Even if congregations and members are not as “informed” as Assembly voting members, if congregations and members of congregations are not “on board” with the decisions of the CWA, will those decisions further our ministry or simply widen the gap?

As an example, I would point to the Journey Together Faithfully “study.” It was made very clear that it was not intended to be a survey of the views of congregational members. The feedback from congregational members was sought out in a general way and the task force was not to be overly influenced by feedback from the study in formulating their proposal. Why? Why wasn’t a survey taken to see what members of congregations think so that when the CWA makes a decision it is with some sense of how it will be received by congregations? Bottom line: I think CWA’s generally make good decisions, but I’d just like to see some sharing of power with Synods and Congregations if, indeed, we are to truly embody the sense of “interdependence” proclaimed in our Constitution.

I’m still sorting out the details regarding the church’s various divisions and agencies, etc., but of particular interest are the proposals regarding the Churchwide Assembly itself (Section IV, pages 5-6). For those who do not know, the CWA is the “bottom line” for the official policies of the congregations of the ELCA. It comes as no surprise that the proposal does not diminish the power and ultimate decision-making authority of the CWA. I say “no surprise” because it would be an unusual, albeit Christ-like sounding, move for any group to relinquish some of its power. In fact, as duly noted by the proposal, the 2003 CWA defeated proposals for changing the ELCA’s governance procedures, including synodical ratification of policy and governing documents and congregational ratification of ecumenical agreements and ministry standards. The proposal partly relies on the 2003 CWA rejection of change to justify its position that “significant changes are not in order.” Hmmm, isn’t there a problem with that logic? If someone said to me, “Pastor Bill, I think you have too much power,” and I replied, “Well, I disagree and, therefore, since I disagree with you, no changes are warranted,” would anyone buy that?

Of course, the 2003 CWA is not the only basis for the proposal’s lack of substantive change regarding the CWA’s decision-making power. The proposal’s feedback process included many sources; however, as I read them (see page 5, bottom), the sources are all groups that are part of the Churchwide organization or people in Synodical leadership positions. There is no provision for input from congregations, save for “a random sample of congregational presidents." Again, those consulted are not those who are feeling disconnected and that they have little to say regarding the positions and direction of the ELCA.

It was great that Bishop Hansen did visit our Synod Assembly a few years ago, seeking feedback from Synodical voting members. But the impact of those visits, if any, seems to have been lost when the different agencies and divisions of the Churchwide organization got their chance to shape the proposal. To my knowledge, congregations have not been asked if they would like to have a “ratifying” role in some areas. To my knowledge, neither have the Synods. All of which certainly diminishes my confidence that this proposal will help the sense of “disconnect” that people in the pews feel regarding the Churchwide expression of the ELCA (ELCA Church Council and Assembly). To be fair, the proposal’s call on the Churchwide expression to do a better job of consulting with Synods, organizations, and congregations will help, but it is a small bandage on a pretty deep cut.

Entry #1: July 29, 2005

2005-07-29T20:00:00.000-07:00

I start with a definite sense of excitement and awe as the Churchwide Assembly (“CWA”) is just over a week away.

It is a privilege to be a voting member at the CWA of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (“ELCA”). I have served in our Synod in many ways beyond the congregational level and enjoyed providing that service very much. I am truly delighted to attend the CWA and experience the ELCA at the “churchwide” (national) level. In a meeting with other voting members from our Sierra Pacific Synod, I’ve noticed that such feelings of awe and excitement are the norm. Moreover, even though every CWA is important, there is a sense that this one is of particular importance, not just because of the votes on homosexuality but because of the votes relating to church governance and worship.

This blog developed as a way to share my experience with the Congregation I serve in Lodi and the clergy of my Conference that I have come to know over my 16 years at Emanuel. Others then suggested that I publicize and offer my thoughts beyond my Conference, so I decided to go ahead. My view is, of course, only one lens on the CWA, but I pray it will be a helpful and thought-provoking one.