I hope Richard Johnson doesn't mind, but I copied his coverage of the debate so I could go ahead and get it to you. Click on the title to go over to the ALPB forum and see his other items. He is doing a great job with getting all the details in. (By the way, I was the speaker from Florida.)
The “Book of Faith: Lutherans Read the Bible” initiative was presented. This is a series of recommendations that will push Bible study over the next several years “with the goal of raising to a new level this church’s individual and collective engagement with the Bible and its teaching, yielding greater biblical fluency, deeper worship and devotion, and a more profound appreciation of Lutheran principles and approaches for the use of Scripture.” The first recommendation which essentially rejoiced that we have the Scripture. Adopted nearly unanimously.
Recommendation 2 gives thanks for the Bible. A New York member moved to insert language (apparently to become a new paragraph after Recommendation 2) “To call members, congregations, synods, churchwide ministries, and institutions and agencies of the ELCA to explore ways to reform culture and customs in this church that will open it to a new level of valuing and being shaped by the power of the Word.” Approved by 72%.
Steven King from SW Minnesota offered an amendment, which came out of Lutheran CORE (though this was not stated by Mr. King). This amendment would change the phrase “and a more profound appreciation of principles and approaches for the use of Scripture” to “and a more profound appreciation of the distinctive Lutheran focus on God’s use of Scripture to bring sinners to repentance and salvation in Christ.” Speakers from Florida and Minnesota spoke in favor (these all lined up ahead of time by Lutheran CORE).
Bishop Burnside from Wisconsin then spoke against the amendment—it “narrows and puts into place our own intention” and “undoes what the original language tries to do.” A speaker from Montana agreed. Bishop Freiheit of Illinois moved to change the word “sinners” in the amendment to the word “all.” Theologically odd, but then this was a bishop speaking. He’s heard the word “sinner” used in some unfortunate ways. He wants all people looked upon equally in God’s eyes.
A Milwaukee member thought the amendment sounds good, but liked the word “all” better than “sinners.” Bishop Holloway from Ohio agreed.
On the amendment to strike “sinners” and put “all,” the Assembly agreed by 86%, and thus “sinners” were struck. On the amendment itself, there was further speaking. Bp. Ullestad of Iowa was against it. He didn’t like the word “distinctive,” and he also thought the amendment narrowed the use of Holy Scripture. A pastor from upstate New York spoke in favor of the amendment, but wanted to amend it by inserting the word “relationship”—so that God uses Scripture to bring “all” (now) to repentance, salvation, and relationship. Sloppy; relationship to whom, and of what kind? The amendment lost, 44% to 56%.
Bishop April Larson complained that her section couldn’t hear Bp. Ullestad, and requested a do-over. The bishop went to the mic, and apparently mouthed some silent words. Bp. Hanson pronounced him even more eloquent the second time. Then he really did his opposition speech over.
Bishop Marcus Lohrmann from NW Ohio. Another member objected to the phrase “God’s use of Scripture”—God is the author, he insisted, not the “user.” The amendment is well intended, but is afraid we’ll end up putting words in God’s mouth.
David Olson of St. Paul spoke in favor. “We must not lose sight of our [Lutheran] heritage.” Bp. Riley of New Jersey was against it, because it deletes the language about “Lutheran principles and approaches.” (Of course this is exactly the point; CORE is concerned that this opens the door to any number of principles and approaches.)
Jason Day from somewhere or the other moved that the word “repentance” in the amendment be replaced with “faith.” Someone who neglected to identify herself (so Charles refused to listen to her) moved previous question on the amendment to the amendment, and the Assembly agreed to cease debate (87%). The amendment to the amendment was approved by 54%. Makes sense; if it’s no longer about sinners, what need have we for repentance.
Melinda Wagner, Oregon Synod, spoke against the amendment. Lutherans have a unique contribution to the question of how to use Scripture. Seems to me she should have been in favor of it, then, but she wasn’t. I guess she things there’s something unique but not distinctive about the Lutheran focus.
Motion to close debate was approved, and the amendment (now more or less viscerated) was rejected, 29% to 71%. A defeat for Lutheran CORE. (My view: CORE was effective at having people lined up to support the amendment, but not so effective at anticipating the nature of the arguments that would be made against it and preparing counter arguments.)
After a motion to close debate was approved, the final recommendation on the initiative was approved by a vote of 93% to 7%. I wonder who the no votes were—people who don’t want to read the Bible, or people who thought the recommendation had holes big enough to drive the proverbial truck through and were afraid that much mischief might result from a nice-sounding resolution. (My view: sure, maybe some mischief, but never underestimate the power of God to work through his Word; getting ELCA members to read the Bible has to be a positive thing, and it will no doubt bring plenty of sinners to repentance and salvation, no matter what the resolution says!)
-----
The American Lutheran Publicity Bureau has an excellent newsletter, journal and forum. Check it out!
---Katie
No comments:
Post a Comment