It ain’t over until it’s over… But it is now very close with the unofficial vote at 68 yes and 86 no. That is one “no” vote away from being defeated.
The headline from yesterday is that of the four presbyteries voting, three switched votes from their previous position.
The part of that which is the real headline is that the first presbytery switched from “yes” to “no,” and the really surprising news is that it was San Francisco Presbytery that switched.
So, thanks to PresbyWeb, here is what happened yesterday…
National Capital voted “Yes” with numbers very consistent across the years: 222-102 yesterday, 220-116 on 01-A, 212-71 on 97-A, and 105-226 on 96-B. (For all of these remember that pro-equality is a yes except on 96-B when it is a no vote.)
Salem and Wabash Valley switched from no to yes.
Salem: 156-149 on 08-B, 160-187 on 01-A, 141-156 on 97-A, and 153-143 on 96-B. (Interesting to note the spike in turnout for 01-A. They other votes are strikingly similar in numbers, with the reversal on 08-B.)
Wabash Valley: 84-67 on 08-B, 83-102 on 01-A, 76-125 on 97-A, 116-100 on 96-B. (Wabash Valley has had a number of churches depart the denomination and the change in no votes from 01-A to 08-B may reflect that. It is notable that the switch occurred not because the yes votes increased, they are statistically identical. This may be one of the few cases that a significant decrease in no votes can be clearly tied to churches realigning.)
San Francisco: 167-177 on 08-B, 216-186 on 01-A, 207-167 on 97-A, 179-214 on 96-B. (The previous votes show a significant consistency, as does the no vote with the past vote numbers. In this case it appears that the yes voters were not there because it shows a decrease of 40+ votes from the typical level.)
Anyway, to have San Francisco vote no took many people by surprise. There is a lot of reaction on Facebook, which I won’t link to. The vote results must have been announced late because the news media has not picked it up yet. (The results had not been posted when this left-coaster went to bed at a later than normal hour.)
East coast blogs are starting to pick it up and you can count on John Shuck for a lively response:
This is an embarrassment. The presbytery of San Francisco
- Home of the PCUSA moderator…
- Home of out candidate, Lisa Larges…
- Home of the Covenant Network…
- Home of Jack Rogers…
- And well it’s freaking San Francisco…
voted No on amendment B last night 167-177. San Francisco has the honor of being the only presbytery
to switch from equality to inequality in this year’s voting. Last time
the vote was 216-186. That means 40 commissioners decided they had
better things to do than to show up for the meeting.Looks to me like they took it for granted while the opposition organized.
[Editorial note: We down here in SoCal claim Jack Rogers now. ]
As news and blogs respond to the vote I’ll add updates to this post.
Update:
The Layman has posted an article that Amendment 08-B has now failed with 86 negative votes. They say at the end of the article that 171 presbyteries are voting, which would require 86 on one side or the other. Not sure where they got that from because the official PC(USA) vote tally page sets 87 as passage.
In addition, and maybe I’m reading too much into this, the Layman seems to extract a bit of “turn-about” in the article, citing San Francisco as the home presbytery of GA Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow. This could be interpreted as a “back at you” for John Edward Harris‘ observation that the first presbytery to switch, Western North Carolina, is the home of the Layman’s long-time editor. Or maybe I’m just too into conspiracy theories and reading articles for hidden meanings. I very well could be wrong and it is all innocent reporting.
Update: I must confess my surprise that now almost 24 hours out there is not more reaction in the news or on the blogs. The PC(USA) Presbyterian News Service did release an article about the vote in general that included yesterday’s votes in the tally but no reporting on any of the presbytery meetings themselves.
Probably the most interesting comment so far has been by Clay Allard on his blog The Right Side of the Trinity. (For those not familiar with the geography of Dallas, TX, the title is a clever turn of phrase on the Trinity River that flows through the city.) The best thing about Clay’s comments is that he takes a bigger view – “The amendment has failed, now what?” He writes:
Now That the Voting Is Over
What an interesting sense of humor God has. As Amendment 08-B moves to
defeat, I was sure that the Puerto-Rican presbyteries would deliver the
coup-de-grace. But instead– it’s SAN FRANCISCO?! I think that it’s
time to examine all the ideas and attitudes that have been slain by
this vote.
and he closes with
Let’s spend some time outside of our own echo chambers, not acting like
this is a football game and we are just “fans” of our side. Instead of
figuring out a strategy of beating “them,” why don’t we find out who
“they” are, and what they want? Why don’t we act like we are not
competing for some prize, but that we are trying to be faithful to
Christ? The voting is over– let the learning begin.
Also, More Light Presbyterians has an article up about the San Francisco vote and the significance of the presbytery meeting being held at Walnut Creek Presbyterian Church.
Elsewhere, Wrestling With Wrelevance and Life Along The Homeschooling Journey comment on the San Francisco vote and the almost-defeat of 08-B. The Reformed Pastor has reaction to both the San Francisco vote as well as the Layman article.
The Layman made an error here. They said that with Midwest Hanmi taking no action that the required majority was now 86 votes; but they were counting Midwest Hanmi as a “no” vote to begin with. I’m not sure if “no action” is equivalent to a “no” vote here…interesting report from a very conservative presbytery.
Either way, opponents need one more vote and they are likely to get it from the Puerto Rico presbyteries or the Dakota presbytery.
Although this issue will not go away it is promoted by the dying wing of the church. San Francisco Presbytery is witness to that as those who press this agenda are dying out at a very rapid pace, they did not show up becuase they simply are not there any more.
Hi David,
Yes, I am hearing there is confusion over the Midwest Hanmi vote, but at the end of the article they say 171 presbyteries.
Anyway, it takes 87 yes votes to pass an amendment so anything that is not yes – no, tie, no action, not voting – is effectively a no.
But as you say, while there may be one more vote to go most observers recognize that there is more than one strong candidate for a no vote yet to vote so this amendment is almost certainly defeated.
I’m planning to write about the defeat of B, but not until it’s actually over. That will likely be Monday.
Not only did they not show up, their conservative replacements failed to attend, too!
I stopped to look at the numbers. I’m not an expert on PCUSA polity, but it caught my attention that in 2001, 402 ballots were cast, 216 YES and 186 NO. In 2009, 344 ballots were cast, 167 YES and 177 NO. There were 9 fewer NO votes this time; there were 49 fewer YES votes. If the number of delegates eligible to vote has not changed, it would appear that many who might have been expected to vote YES failed to show up.
Put in percentage terms relative to 2001, there were 14+% fewer votes cast, of these 2+% fewer Noes and 12+% Yeses.
It is as likely that many were so overconfident that they failed to show as that they simply faded away. He who believes the latter is in risk of being overwhelmed in the future.
I’m looking forward to it Mark.
I will probably do a pastoral letter over on my Moderator’s blog next week. Can an elder do a pastoral letter?
John,
Thanks for crunching the numbers. I had not gotten around to it yet.
And I come to the same conclusion you did. When I look at the statistics, through 2007 (2008 is not available yet) there is a loss of 2 churches and 3,000 members. That does not translate into 40 commissioners.
And the no votes have varied from 167 to 186 on past votes so the 177 is right in the range.
Thanks for the post. I was out of town and away from my computer when the news hit. My post in response is at http://summittoshore.blogspot.com/2009/04/has-san-francisco-lost-its-heart.html