I was encouraged that there were proposed substitute resolutions to memorialize CWA to accept the sexuality statement and recommendations. Of course they were voted down. The discussion was decidedly lacking in both passion and profundity on both sides. I guess people are just tired of talking about it and want to just vote and get on with it. Both the resolutions to memorialize to defeat passed but not by much. About 200-150 for both of them. I think that says a great deal that even as conservative a synod as ours is not of one mind on this issue. The times--they are a changing....
There was a truly awful resolution to encourage members and congregations to urge Iowa State legislature to pass a constitutional amendment to declare marraige to be only between a man and a woman. That was soundly defeated, thank goodness.
Probably the stupidest resolution was to table the proposed agreement for full communion with the United Methodist church. The reasoning?? It wouldn't be fair to the Methodists, since we are voting on the possibility of ordaining Gay and Lesbian pastors in committed relationships and currently Methodists do not ordain them. Um, the Methodists have already voted to accept this agreement. And they knew darn well what they were getting into so I find the whole thing rather specious. Anyway we voted to refer that whole question back to the Synod Council.
Great post, Pastor. Didn't make it to the assembly, so yours has been the first news I've heard of the results. Conservatives we can live with. Fundamentalist are the enemy. And BTW, I really like your style.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I get the opposition to the sexuality social statement. Is it just that sex is yucky and we don't want to have such a statement, or is it simply that it doesn't toe a puritanical line with simplistic moralistic statements?
ReplyDeleteWell the guy that authored it kept complaining it didn't allow us to "move forward in unity" which I totally did not get. The problem is we are not unified on this matter. The resolution did specfically say we should keep the old ones we have from predicessor bodies.
ReplyDeleteAs a United Methodist, I was excited that our General Conference approved full communion last year, and am hoping that your General Synond/Assembly approves it this summer. :)
ReplyDeleteMy sense is that those who complained it wasn't possible to "move forward in unity" believe that "unity" means marching in lock step. It's possible for progressives and conservatives to work (and move) forward together. It's not possible for progressives and fundamentalists to co-exist in peace, let alone experience leitougia.
ReplyDeleteOoh a new word...that I looked up and still am not sure what you mean.
ReplyDeleteI truly did not understand the "move forward in unity" argument... I would have thought the one thing in the statement we could all agree upon was that ...we do not agree!
The statement was masterfully written. The wording I would have used? No - but close - and I certainly could live with the final product. I used the word in the NT sense of people working together in God's name, i.e. "worship." In the context of the sentence I wrote it could as well have ended "...let alone experience working together in worship."
ReplyDelete