This is complicated. Allow me to try to simplify, but bear with me.
Broadly speaking, there are two LGBT issues that will come before this 2009 ELCA Church wide assembly. One is the adoption or rejection of a Sexuality Social Statement. The second is a proposed change in Ministry Policies.
According to the ELCA Constitution, there are three matters that require a 2/3 supra-majority. 1) Amendments to the Constitution, 2) Full communion agreements with another denomination, and 3) Social Statements. Since the Proposed Sexuality Statement is a Social Statement, it will require a 2/3 supra-majority to pass. This requirement was not at issue this evening.
On the other hand, there are proposed changes in the existing Ministry policies of the church. The present policies require gay and lesbian persons to remain celibate in order to become ordained. This policy came into existence by majority votes of previous bodies, specifically the Council of Bishops, many years ago. Recently, the Council of Bishops has proposed a change in the Ministry policies that will allow gay and lesbian persons in committed relationships to become or remain ordained. In proposing the changes for consideration by the Assembly, the Council of Bishops established a simple majority rule, which would be consistent with prior decisions on ministry policy.
It was this latter rule that was the subject of the conservative’s motion. The motion was to change the rules to require a 2/3 supra-majority to adopt or amend the proposed changes to ministry policy.
Debate went on for over an hour with speakers alternating between those favoring and those opposing the motion. The arguments were varied but two predominated. For the conservatives, the “wisdom of the ages” and similar sentiments came up often. Changes to long standing policies and attitudes should only come about through strong consensus, defined as a 2/3 majority.
Those who argued against the proposed rule change also argued history. It has always been the history to adopt ministry policies by a simple majority. Since the prohibitions against gay clergy were adopted by simple majority vote, reversal of the prohibition should also require only a simple majority. When the decision was made to allow women clergy, (a Ministry policy change), a mere simple majority was required. A gay man spoke, asking why gays should be singled out for a more stringent procedural rule than other ministerial policy decisions.
In any case, the motion to change the requirement from simple majority to supra-majority failed. 43% voted in favor of the motion and 57% voted against.
Clear as mud? Sorry, that’s the best my addled brain can do at this hour after conventioneering all day.
Suffice it to say, this was a huge victory for those who promote a change in ministerial policy that will open the door to ordaining gays and lesbians. If this vote in any way presages the vote on the substance of the measure (and many think it will), then a 57-43% split suggests a strong probability that the substantive measure will pass when it comes up for a vote later this week.
Thanks for your clear words on attempting to explain what often appear to be incomprehensible procedures. I rejoice at this vote (odd that a vote on procedure can be nearly as significant as the vote on the issue, but akin to the goal of getting 60 filibuster-proof votes for health care reform in the US Senate, in a way).
What I find ironic, though, is that CWA 2007 (or, was it even 2005?) does not get discussed. More specifically, similar ministry resolutions would have passed with a simple majority had not pre-assembly rulings set up the super-majority threshold, claiming that the resolutions changed “Visions and Expectations”, which had previously been adopted by a CWA. A friend who was then serving on the Church Council checked into the history of the relevant passages in V & E and found that those passages had been added by the Council and/or the Council of Bishops (at this point, I’m not sure which) and thus, in that person’s argument, could have been removed by even Council action alone, not even requiring the super-majority at CWA which various leaders at that time said was necessary.
Parliamentary issues aside, though, let’s look forward to yet another series of positive votes.
You ask a very good question about the ’05 and ’07 assemblies, and I don’t know the answer. I will check around today. I do know that there has been a sea change in posture. A young man who is a veteran of Goodsoil campaigns said this is the first time that Goodsoil and Higgins Street (his euphemism for ELCA officialdom based on home office’s street address in Chicago) are on the same page. That is, instead of promoting something contrary to Higgins Street, Goodsoil now finds itself in the unprecedented situation of supporting Higgins Street’s actions/recommendation.
It’s Higgins *Road.* I’ve really enjoyed exploring your blog.
Ann,
I knew that, but before coffee, my mind was still sleeping. Thanks for your comment and your kind words.
The people I know who were at CWA 07 thought a resolution to end restrictions on gay clergy propably could have passed. Passing it off to the sexuality task force was all about Higgins Rd desperately trying to buy time and to get some kind of cover. I think that now they just want to cut the ELCA’s losses and get it over with. It’s obvious how it’s going to end. Protracting it will accomplish nothing but deepen the animosity. They know some churches are going to leave. As with CCOJ (your earlier post), some already have.
My hope is that this doesn’t end with only a sense of a battle fought with winners and losers. I think Bishop Hanson has to get over his concern to keep everybody happy and say that this is a victory for the church and the gospel and the ELCA should be proud of what it has done. Yes, we’re going to lose people over this but more importantly we have a new opportunity to sincerely reach out to a group of alienated people. He needs to emphasize the up side to this as well as being honest about the loss. But, we’ll see…
In case you haven’t seen it yet, my take on what got us to this point and the prospects going forward is here: http://cyberspiritcafe.blogspot.com/2009/08/idol-of-church-unity.html
Obie: Can you explain the difference if the ECLA changes the ministry policy, but doesn’t adopt a new Social Statement? Practically speaking, what is the difference in the force of authority between these two proclamations?
Here’s another answer for the question about the ’05 and ’07 assemblies. According to a Goodsoil veteran who at was at both, the issue was raised in ’05 as a constitutional amendment thus requiring 2/3. In ’07, the issue was raised as a ministry policy and subject to a simple majority rule, but failed by 53-47%.
David, your question about conflicting results if the Ministry policy change passes but the sexuality statement fails is a good one, and also a realistic possibility based on the 57-43% vote last night. Since the sexuality statement requires 2/3 while the ministry policy change is only simple majority, your hypothetical may happen.
But, I’m not sure it is a big deal because they are different things. The statement is a statement of “this is what we believe about human sexuality”. It is a lengthy statement but does not include specific policy items. On the other hand, the ministry policy is purely a matter of policy. If your hypothetical becomes reality, my guess is that we will have gay clergy but not an all encompassing statement of belief about human sexuality. One is not necessary for the other even though passage of both would be complementary. They are not mutually dependent.
I looked at the ELCA website section on the 07 assembly but couldn’t find the vote your Goodsoil friend was refering to, not that it really matters. The only votes listed were on refering to the sexuality task force, with one exception: the Landahl motion for “restrain in discipline,” which passed 538-431. Does that indicate how a policy change vote might have fared? Who knows. I think once the notion of passing it all on to the task force took hold that’s all people wanted to consider.
While I think the social statement will pass, I would not be particularly disappointed if it didn’t. I think it is a very mediocre document, due primarily to the fact that the subject matter is simply enormous (and to have added the gay issues to the task force’s to do list was ridiculous–those poor people). A typical text on the the theology of sex runs hundreds of pages. The church would do much better if it focused its concern on specific aspects of sexuality, e.g. abortion, sex in the media, sexual education, homosexuality, etc. Somehow it seems this should have been obvious after the first sexuality statement fiasco but in the church it often seems nothing is obvious. In any case, as you say Obie, its passage or defeat will be a separate matter from the policy change.