ELCA 9th Churchwide Assembly - Day 5 Reflections
We are both sinner and saint - regardless of what side of the issue we fall. The gentleman who belly-ached like a three year-old when time ran out for him to take his turn at the mic stood up today and declared that he was indeed out of order and that he sought forgiveness of this. He is a man of integrity and I am thankful that he is here as a voting member of this assembly.
And so the voting around the three sexuality issues begins. By 9:15, following a brief for/against discussion, the CWA voted to approve issue one stating basically that this is not a church-dividing issue.
Issue two had more debate and after several alternative ammendments were defeated, the final approved and adopted ammendment simply changed the words, "...to provide pastoral care for people in same-sex relationships" to "...to provide pastoral care for all people." This passed on a simply majority.
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.
And so the voting around the three sexuality issues begins. By 9:15, following a brief for/against discussion, the CWA voted to approve issue one stating basically that this is not a church-dividing issue.
Issue two had more debate and after several alternative ammendments were defeated, the final approved and adopted ammendment simply changed the words, "...to provide pastoral care for people in same-sex relationships" to "...to provide pastoral care for all people." This passed on a simply majority.
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.
posted by Kim @ 9:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home