. . .to the Minnesota Supreme Court for finally seating the junior Senator, and to Norm Coleman for finally finding the grace to quit challenging the decisions of the judiciary.
. . .to the August Schell Brewing Company for snagging the best free stage line-up at the Fair this year. When the sun goes down, be sure to find yourself in Heritage Square to hear the likes of Billy McLaughlin, Storyhill, and The Front Porch Swingin' Liquor Pigs.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Synod Assembly Part Deux
At long last I have time to recap Day Two of Synod Assembly, when we got down to the brass tacks of legislative action.
We had two memorials before us on the sexuality issue. For those unaccustomed to ELCA polity and related lingo - a memorial is a message that we as a synod send to the churchwide assembly, usually advising them to do or not do something in particular.
The churchwide assembly is not bound by these memorials- they can choose to pay attention to them or to ignore them. Often, a memorial can be the thing that gets a ball rolling for the national church - in fact, I believe we are currently at the place we are at in these conversations on sexuality because several years ago, a synod (or perhaps several synods) memorialized the churchwide assembly to generate a social statement on sexuality, and the assembly agreed that would be a good thing to do. Similarly, the Book of Faith initiative is also the result of a synod memorializing the churchwide assembly to "increase Biblical literacy and fluency for the sake of the world," and the churchwide assembly decided that this, too, would be a good thing to do.
The memorials before us were not so much to get a new initiative going, they were more of a weighing in with our opinion on controversial matters currently before the church. One memorial was advising the churchwide assembly to adapt their rules for adoption, so that passage of both the social statement and the recommendations on rostering policies require a "supermajority" (2/3 of the assembly), as opposed to a regular majority (51% - the current standard). The other memorial was advising the churchwide assembly to reject: the sexuality statement, the policy recommendations, and "the concept that individual members, congregations, or synods have the authority to interpret or set aside Scripture on these matters apart from the consensus of the Church." Additionally, this memorial encouraged the churchwide assembly to accept the resolutions from Dissenting Opinion One (including but not limited to putting the kabosh on all discussions of sexuality for the next decade).
I missed the discussion and vote on the supermajority memorial, and the beginning of the debate on the other memorial, as did a number of other folks, because we were getting ready for worship. We were installing authorized lay leaders in the service, and the new lay leaders and their mentors (of which I was one) were instructed to be vested by 9:30 am; the choir (of which I was also one) was also instructed to be downstairs to warm up by 9:30. This meant that probably 20-30 voting members were not on the floor of the assembly when these discussions began, and had no inkling of what we were missing. When I left the floor to vest they were in the middle of somebody's report, I did not anticipate them getting to legislative matters at all before worship, in part because they had been so careful the day before about not dismissing the elections committee to count ballots during the "quasi-committee of the whole," so that elections committee members could participate in the discussion.
I don't believe it was a sneaky political ploy, just an unfortunate miscommunication (the Bishop was honestly shocked in the afternoon plenary when he saw how many hands went up asking for the paper ballot we weren't given in the morning session) - but it was still unacceptable, and believe me, the synod office will be hearing from me about it so that they don't fall into the same situation in the future.
All of which is to say, again - I missed all the initial discussion (which from reports, started to get a little nasty on memorial #2), and the vote on the supermajority memorial (which was approved).
When we picked the matter back up in the afternoon, a colleague submitted a substitutionary memorial, that was not really a friendly substitution to the original memorial at all - the whereases were much more focused on lifting up the gifts of ALL members of the church and finding a way for ALL to serve, and the resolveds were to accept the social statement but reject any rostering policy changes for now, while continuing the discussion to find ways for our homosexual brothers and sisters to serve as rostered leaders of the church, and equipping and encouraging them as strong lay leaders in the meantime.
More debate and discussion ensued. The tenor of the discussion was less civil on this day, especially from those who favored the original memorial (one colleague kept trying to turn the discussion into more of a point-counterpoint debate and was very contemptuous of any argument he disagreed with; another resorted to the old "you're abandoning the Bible" ad hominum, then jumped from the matter at hand into a non sequitur about bestiality - I think in a lot of people's minds, they basically discredited themselves by their rhetoric and their tactics).
Ultimately, we voted to substitute the new memorial for the original, and then voted the new memorial down (85 in favor; 136 opposed), I'm sure because it had enough in it for everyone to hate: both those who wanted to reject the social statement and those who wanted to accept the policy recommendations weren't going to vote for it.
So in the end, we haven't sent any word of advice on to the churchwide assembly on this matter (other than recommending passage by a supermajority), which I think is actually a good thing. Because we believe (or at least, we claim to believe) that the Holy Spirit is at work in the workings of the assembly, thus we ought to trust the Spirit to do its thing, just as we ought to trust those elected to the churchwide assembly to be prayerful people with discerning hearts and minds in this and all other matters before the church. Maybe it's time our words and actions (my own included) reflected more faith in that belief.
Peace,
C.
We had two memorials before us on the sexuality issue. For those unaccustomed to ELCA polity and related lingo - a memorial is a message that we as a synod send to the churchwide assembly, usually advising them to do or not do something in particular.
The churchwide assembly is not bound by these memorials- they can choose to pay attention to them or to ignore them. Often, a memorial can be the thing that gets a ball rolling for the national church - in fact, I believe we are currently at the place we are at in these conversations on sexuality because several years ago, a synod (or perhaps several synods) memorialized the churchwide assembly to generate a social statement on sexuality, and the assembly agreed that would be a good thing to do. Similarly, the Book of Faith initiative is also the result of a synod memorializing the churchwide assembly to "increase Biblical literacy and fluency for the sake of the world," and the churchwide assembly decided that this, too, would be a good thing to do.
The memorials before us were not so much to get a new initiative going, they were more of a weighing in with our opinion on controversial matters currently before the church. One memorial was advising the churchwide assembly to adapt their rules for adoption, so that passage of both the social statement and the recommendations on rostering policies require a "supermajority" (2/3 of the assembly), as opposed to a regular majority (51% - the current standard). The other memorial was advising the churchwide assembly to reject: the sexuality statement, the policy recommendations, and "the concept that individual members, congregations, or synods have the authority to interpret or set aside Scripture on these matters apart from the consensus of the Church." Additionally, this memorial encouraged the churchwide assembly to accept the resolutions from Dissenting Opinion One (including but not limited to putting the kabosh on all discussions of sexuality for the next decade).
I missed the discussion and vote on the supermajority memorial, and the beginning of the debate on the other memorial, as did a number of other folks, because we were getting ready for worship. We were installing authorized lay leaders in the service, and the new lay leaders and their mentors (of which I was one) were instructed to be vested by 9:30 am; the choir (of which I was also one) was also instructed to be downstairs to warm up by 9:30. This meant that probably 20-30 voting members were not on the floor of the assembly when these discussions began, and had no inkling of what we were missing. When I left the floor to vest they were in the middle of somebody's report, I did not anticipate them getting to legislative matters at all before worship, in part because they had been so careful the day before about not dismissing the elections committee to count ballots during the "quasi-committee of the whole," so that elections committee members could participate in the discussion.
I don't believe it was a sneaky political ploy, just an unfortunate miscommunication (the Bishop was honestly shocked in the afternoon plenary when he saw how many hands went up asking for the paper ballot we weren't given in the morning session) - but it was still unacceptable, and believe me, the synod office will be hearing from me about it so that they don't fall into the same situation in the future.
All of which is to say, again - I missed all the initial discussion (which from reports, started to get a little nasty on memorial #2), and the vote on the supermajority memorial (which was approved).
When we picked the matter back up in the afternoon, a colleague submitted a substitutionary memorial, that was not really a friendly substitution to the original memorial at all - the whereases were much more focused on lifting up the gifts of ALL members of the church and finding a way for ALL to serve, and the resolveds were to accept the social statement but reject any rostering policy changes for now, while continuing the discussion to find ways for our homosexual brothers and sisters to serve as rostered leaders of the church, and equipping and encouraging them as strong lay leaders in the meantime.
More debate and discussion ensued. The tenor of the discussion was less civil on this day, especially from those who favored the original memorial (one colleague kept trying to turn the discussion into more of a point-counterpoint debate and was very contemptuous of any argument he disagreed with; another resorted to the old "you're abandoning the Bible" ad hominum, then jumped from the matter at hand into a non sequitur about bestiality - I think in a lot of people's minds, they basically discredited themselves by their rhetoric and their tactics).
Ultimately, we voted to substitute the new memorial for the original, and then voted the new memorial down (85 in favor; 136 opposed), I'm sure because it had enough in it for everyone to hate: both those who wanted to reject the social statement and those who wanted to accept the policy recommendations weren't going to vote for it.
So in the end, we haven't sent any word of advice on to the churchwide assembly on this matter (other than recommending passage by a supermajority), which I think is actually a good thing. Because we believe (or at least, we claim to believe) that the Holy Spirit is at work in the workings of the assembly, thus we ought to trust the Spirit to do its thing, just as we ought to trust those elected to the churchwide assembly to be prayerful people with discerning hearts and minds in this and all other matters before the church. Maybe it's time our words and actions (my own included) reflected more faith in that belief.
Peace,
C.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Random Questions
Did the Wailin' Jennys break up? I ask because Heather Masse has been doing a lot of guest appearances on PHC this year - which is great, her voice is gorgeous, and it's always a treat to have her on the show. But if her availability is because the Jennys are on the skids, that would make me incredibly sad.
Why does it always seem like we lose daylight on this side of the solstice faster than we were gaining it in the weeks before? Is this a scientific fact, or merely a psychological illusion?
Is it possible to have blogger notify one of comments that need to be moderated? I didn't used to moderate comments, then some guy I didn't know posted a lengthy non-sequitur about Judge Sotomayor on a completely non-political post of mine (it looked like a form post that he was sticking onto any blog that wasn't moderated), so now I filter comments before releasing them to the blogosphere. The only problem is, blogger doesn't email me when I have a comment to filter. Do I need to adjust the settings, or do I need to just check in more often?
Finally, is it terribly obvious these are the things that came to me as I was procrastinating on my sermon? :)
Why does it always seem like we lose daylight on this side of the solstice faster than we were gaining it in the weeks before? Is this a scientific fact, or merely a psychological illusion?
Is it possible to have blogger notify one of comments that need to be moderated? I didn't used to moderate comments, then some guy I didn't know posted a lengthy non-sequitur about Judge Sotomayor on a completely non-political post of mine (it looked like a form post that he was sticking onto any blog that wasn't moderated), so now I filter comments before releasing them to the blogosphere. The only problem is, blogger doesn't email me when I have a comment to filter. Do I need to adjust the settings, or do I need to just check in more often?
Finally, is it terribly obvious these are the things that came to me as I was procrastinating on my sermon? :)
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Time After Time
A final recap of the synod assembly is coming, I promise, but for tonight, just a quick post because it occurred to me recently that I now mark time most often in relation to both agricultural cycles and who I've buried. This realization came to me when Breen mentioned they'd be canning cherries this weekend, and I actually thought to myself, "Isn't it too early for cherries? We did that last year when Ethel was actively dying, and that wasn't until mid-July."
It's a weird life we pastors lead. . .
It's a weird life we pastors lead. . .
Friday, June 19, 2009
Sex and the Synod Assembly
Well, this weekend it is Upper Susquehanna's turn to wrestle with the weighty matters before the church.
Bishop Driesen spent a good amount of his report on the issue of the sexuality statement and accompanying policy recommendations. He shared his perspective, which he has been transparent about since the report's release - he does not favor a change in policy at this time, both because of his interpretation of the Scriptures, and even moreso, because he fears the ramifications of condoning a plurality of practice across the ELCA. Though he made his convictions clear, he was also very clear about the fact that he does not believe those who hold opposing convictions are any less faithful or any less grounded in Scripture. He was also clear that he did not make his statement in order to distance himself from those who may disagree, and there would be no judgement or differing treatment on his part toward any who speak from an opposing point of view, and that he hoped we could continue with respectful dialogue and discernment.
Though, as I said, the Bishop has been transparent about his perspective and concerns since the statement and report's release , I was initially kind of upset that he "weighed in" in this way during his own report, because I thought it may unduly sway the voting members of the assembly. A large part of that is maybe a difference in our leadership styles - in council meetings and annual meetings, I try to hold back from commenting right away, precisely because people grant so much authority to what I have to say, and I want them to think things through for themselves and have true ownership in the decision, not just do something or not do something because I say so. The Bishop seems to prefer more hierarchical systems and claims his authority more quickly than I - not in a power hungry kind of way, but humbly, and with an awesome sense of responsibility to steward the authority which his office grants him. I can understand and respect that, even though I choose to lead in a different way. I can also understand and respect his concerns about the plurality of practice, even though I don't share them.
But I digress. I was less upset after talking to Andy about the report, because he pointed out that what it did more than anything was set the tone for the discussions yet to come, and it disarmed the mudslinging, ad hominum attacks, and vitriolic rhetoric (especially the "you're abandoning the Bible" arguments) into which these debates are prone to devolve.
At the next plenary, we voted to form a "quasi-committee of the whole" - which was a brilliant parliamentary move that gave us a block of time to actually talk about the issue without a legislative vote on the line, so that no one could prematurely end the discussion by calling the question. While we were not exactly talking with each other, we were at least not merely talking at each other, or stuck in a point-counterpoint debate. From what I can remember, 19 people spoke (including yours truly) - there may have been more, but when I got home and thought back to who went to the mics: 14 spoke in favor of the statement and/or policy recommendations (10 clergy, 4 laypeople); 3 spoke against (all clergy); 1 colleague I'm not sure about - I thought he began by saying he was against, but then the content of what he said sounded to me like he was for, and I'm not sure which part of his speech I misunderstood; 1 person spoke neither for nor against, but only to the point they believe the Churchwide Assembly needs to pass this by a "supermajority" (2/3 instead of 51%).
A few of the usual suspects who are reliably outspoken on this issue (on both sides) were conspicuously silent today. I don't know if the Bishop's report truly disarmed what they had to say, or if they are waiting until tomorrow's debate on the resolution. Mal sehen.
In any case, at the end of the quasi-committee of the whole, we then took a series of non-binding votes to get a sense of the assembly. The votes were as follows:
On the question of the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust
In favor: 100
Undecided: 58
Opposed: 107
On the question of the implementing resolutions (if the social statement is adopted, the action plan for how it will be implemented into the life of the church)
In favor: 126
Undecided: 53
Opposed: 86
We took each of the four resolutions of the Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies in order.
On Resolution 1, that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships.
In favor: 116
Undecided: 37
Opposed: 113
On Resolution 2, that the ELCA commit itself to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church.
In favor: 113
Undecided: 39
Opposed: 117
On Resolution 3, that, in the implementation of these resolutions, the ELCA commit itself to bear one another's burdens, love the neighbor, and respect the bound conscience of all.
In favor: 137
Undecided: 28
Opposed: 83
On Resolution 4, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America call upon its members to commit themselves to respect the bound consciences of those with whom they disagree regarding decisions on the call and rostering of individuals in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships, in this church and with churches ecumenically and globally, and that this church, because of its commitment to respect the bound consciences of all, declare its intent to allow structured flexibility in the decision-making process regarding the approving or disapproving in candidacy and the extending or not extending of a call. . .(etc - it's long, read the whole thing on the link)
In favor: 114
Undecided: 45
Opposed: 113
Three things stand out to me about these nonbinding votes:
First, even here in this fairly conservative, traditional family values area of the country, we are closely divided on this matter.
Second, though as a whole we're not quite sure we're ready for them in our pulpit, it seems as a whole we are slightly open to the idea of acknowledging some sort of life-long, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship between two people of the same gender. I'm frankly surprised that window has emerged here, and even though it's only open the tiniest little bit, it's a place to start, and from the perspective of justice, not a bad one.
Third, more than anything we seem to be longing for a way to respect one another and live together in spite of our deep differences (at least, that's my read on resolution 3's vote) - and that's a good thing.
So, that was how things went today. Tomorrow we will have another discussion/debate on a resolution asking us to reject the social statement, and the policy recommendations, and "the concept that individual members, congregations, or synods have the authority to interpret or set aside Scripture on these matters apart from the consensus of the Church," and to accept the resolutions from Dissenting Opinion One (including but not limited to putting the kabosh on all discussions of sexuality for the next decade). I know - that's a heck of a lot to pack into one little resolution. And given how close the non-binding votes were today, I think it could honestly go either way. Mal sehen.
Whichever way it goes, I think we need to do a division of the house so that the Churchwide Assembly can see how narrow of a margin decided the issue.
Alright, I'm tired and I've got another long day tomorrow. If you're still with me, thanks for tuning in.
Peace,
C.
Bishop Driesen spent a good amount of his report on the issue of the sexuality statement and accompanying policy recommendations. He shared his perspective, which he has been transparent about since the report's release - he does not favor a change in policy at this time, both because of his interpretation of the Scriptures, and even moreso, because he fears the ramifications of condoning a plurality of practice across the ELCA. Though he made his convictions clear, he was also very clear about the fact that he does not believe those who hold opposing convictions are any less faithful or any less grounded in Scripture. He was also clear that he did not make his statement in order to distance himself from those who may disagree, and there would be no judgement or differing treatment on his part toward any who speak from an opposing point of view, and that he hoped we could continue with respectful dialogue and discernment.
Though, as I said, the Bishop has been transparent about his perspective and concerns since the statement and report's release , I was initially kind of upset that he "weighed in" in this way during his own report, because I thought it may unduly sway the voting members of the assembly. A large part of that is maybe a difference in our leadership styles - in council meetings and annual meetings, I try to hold back from commenting right away, precisely because people grant so much authority to what I have to say, and I want them to think things through for themselves and have true ownership in the decision, not just do something or not do something because I say so. The Bishop seems to prefer more hierarchical systems and claims his authority more quickly than I - not in a power hungry kind of way, but humbly, and with an awesome sense of responsibility to steward the authority which his office grants him. I can understand and respect that, even though I choose to lead in a different way. I can also understand and respect his concerns about the plurality of practice, even though I don't share them.
But I digress. I was less upset after talking to Andy about the report, because he pointed out that what it did more than anything was set the tone for the discussions yet to come, and it disarmed the mudslinging, ad hominum attacks, and vitriolic rhetoric (especially the "you're abandoning the Bible" arguments) into which these debates are prone to devolve.
At the next plenary, we voted to form a "quasi-committee of the whole" - which was a brilliant parliamentary move that gave us a block of time to actually talk about the issue without a legislative vote on the line, so that no one could prematurely end the discussion by calling the question. While we were not exactly talking with each other, we were at least not merely talking at each other, or stuck in a point-counterpoint debate. From what I can remember, 19 people spoke (including yours truly) - there may have been more, but when I got home and thought back to who went to the mics: 14 spoke in favor of the statement and/or policy recommendations (10 clergy, 4 laypeople); 3 spoke against (all clergy); 1 colleague I'm not sure about - I thought he began by saying he was against, but then the content of what he said sounded to me like he was for, and I'm not sure which part of his speech I misunderstood; 1 person spoke neither for nor against, but only to the point they believe the Churchwide Assembly needs to pass this by a "supermajority" (2/3 instead of 51%).
A few of the usual suspects who are reliably outspoken on this issue (on both sides) were conspicuously silent today. I don't know if the Bishop's report truly disarmed what they had to say, or if they are waiting until tomorrow's debate on the resolution. Mal sehen.
In any case, at the end of the quasi-committee of the whole, we then took a series of non-binding votes to get a sense of the assembly. The votes were as follows:
On the question of the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust
In favor: 100
Undecided: 58
Opposed: 107
On the question of the implementing resolutions (if the social statement is adopted, the action plan for how it will be implemented into the life of the church)
In favor: 126
Undecided: 53
Opposed: 86
We took each of the four resolutions of the Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies in order.
On Resolution 1, that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships.
In favor: 116
Undecided: 37
Opposed: 113
On Resolution 2, that the ELCA commit itself to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church.
In favor: 113
Undecided: 39
Opposed: 117
On Resolution 3, that, in the implementation of these resolutions, the ELCA commit itself to bear one another's burdens, love the neighbor, and respect the bound conscience of all.
In favor: 137
Undecided: 28
Opposed: 83
On Resolution 4, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America call upon its members to commit themselves to respect the bound consciences of those with whom they disagree regarding decisions on the call and rostering of individuals in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships, in this church and with churches ecumenically and globally, and that this church, because of its commitment to respect the bound consciences of all, declare its intent to allow structured flexibility in the decision-making process regarding the approving or disapproving in candidacy and the extending or not extending of a call. . .(etc - it's long, read the whole thing on the link)
In favor: 114
Undecided: 45
Opposed: 113
Three things stand out to me about these nonbinding votes:
First, even here in this fairly conservative, traditional family values area of the country, we are closely divided on this matter.
Second, though as a whole we're not quite sure we're ready for them in our pulpit, it seems as a whole we are slightly open to the idea of acknowledging some sort of life-long, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship between two people of the same gender. I'm frankly surprised that window has emerged here, and even though it's only open the tiniest little bit, it's a place to start, and from the perspective of justice, not a bad one.
Third, more than anything we seem to be longing for a way to respect one another and live together in spite of our deep differences (at least, that's my read on resolution 3's vote) - and that's a good thing.
So, that was how things went today. Tomorrow we will have another discussion/debate on a resolution asking us to reject the social statement, and the policy recommendations, and "the concept that individual members, congregations, or synods have the authority to interpret or set aside Scripture on these matters apart from the consensus of the Church," and to accept the resolutions from Dissenting Opinion One (including but not limited to putting the kabosh on all discussions of sexuality for the next decade). I know - that's a heck of a lot to pack into one little resolution. And given how close the non-binding votes were today, I think it could honestly go either way. Mal sehen.
Whichever way it goes, I think we need to do a division of the house so that the Churchwide Assembly can see how narrow of a margin decided the issue.
Alright, I'm tired and I've got another long day tomorrow. If you're still with me, thanks for tuning in.
Peace,
C.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Public Service Announcement
For Valley cyclists looking for a fairly level, wide, safe path on which to ride: the new rail-to-trail path between Lewisburg and Mifflinburg is not yet ready for public use.
Sure, when you drive by it looks all tantilizingly good to go, because the railroad ties are up and a base level of gravel is down.
But it has not yet been packed and graded. It's rather like cycling through lumpy molasses.
Sure, when you drive by it looks all tantilizingly good to go, because the railroad ties are up and a base level of gravel is down.
But it has not yet been packed and graded. It's rather like cycling through lumpy molasses.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Singing For Our Lives
I'm normally wary of study results that coincidentally favor their funders agenda (like when the tobacco industry releases studies downplaying tobacco's harmful effects). But in this case, the truth proclaimed by this study is so abundantly self-evident, it could have been funded by a group of Trappist Monks and the results would have been the same.
So, thanks to Chorus America, we now know that singing is a key component to a fulfilling life and the successful pursuit of liberty and happiness.
Well, duh.
So, thanks to Chorus America, we now know that singing is a key component to a fulfilling life and the successful pursuit of liberty and happiness.
Well, duh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)