One was the best of weekends, the other the worst of weekends — And which was which depended on which side of the Amendment 08-B debate you are on…
Well, bad literary parody aside (although I considered continuing like this and letting you count the clichés) I would not have had another update this soon, except that the voting patterns this weekend were so strikingly different from last weekend.
Last weekend many of us were marveling at the number of presbyteries that switched their votes – nine out of the sixteen presbyteries that had previously voted no. This strong trend in switched votes led the Presbyterian Outlook and The Layman to seriously consider the passage of 08-B.
Now the voting ending this weekend: With results in from the last few days of voting there were two yes votes and 12 no votes, and neither of the yes votes were switches. In fact a couple of presbyteries that were believed to be prime targets to switch votes went back to a stronger “no” vote. For example, Indian Nations was tied at 52 last time and voted 38-43 this time. (That could just be about the same vote ratio within the statistical variation.)
(And on another note, I was intrigued by the difference between there being some significant mainstream media coverage of the voting the last couple of weekends and none this week that I could find.)
With the drought in presbytery swings this week, the proportions in the current voting trend would mean another 11 presbyteries switch for a final vote of 72 to 101. At the moment, the amendment is sitting at 36-57. For Amendment 08-B to pass would require 51 more votes. There are still 25 presbyteries left to vote that voted yes the last time on 01-A. If they all vote yes again that means that 26 of the remaining 55 presbyteries that voted no last time would have to switch votes. That is by no means out of the question, but it means that all the remaining voting needs to have presbyteries switch at the same rate we saw in the week ending February 21 and not like this week.
I’m not sure I, or anyone else, is ready to announce the defeat of Amendment 08-B yet. But with these two weeks showing that the switching of votes was not necessarily a trend I do consider passage of 08-B fairly unlikely at this point. Its supporters have a major up-hill climb ahead of them. But we are only a bit more than half-way through and who knows how the Holy Spirit will move through the presbyteries as they discern the will of God. After all, it ain’t over ’till it’s over and that’s why we play the game. My prayers that God will help the remaining presbyteries discern His will.
Update: Responding to the discernment process in Newton Presbytery, Viola Larson wrote about “Spiritual Manipulation When Voting On 08-b.” After this weekend’s voting Bruce Hahne has a post on “Weekly 08-B Wrapup: The Anti-equality Deck Stacking Begins” highlighting how he views the process in Indian Nations Presbytery “Stifling the Spirit” because adequate debate was not allowed.
Steve: Appreciate the work you are doing keeping us posted.
Just a thought, FWIW: I am not sure that the best index for marking change is the 2001 vote on Amendment 01-A. As I recall going through that process, much of the voting was based upon a “not again” reaction — being the third vote in five years. As one who worked in support of G-6.0106b, I can tell you that the “no on 01-A campaign” benefited greatly from the spiritual exhaustion of voting so soon and so often.
I have done (literally) no analysis of the voting within the presbyteries, but my impression of the overall presbytery vote is it matches more closely to the 1997-1998 Amendment A vote (Fidelity and Integrity). If you have worked the numbers, does that fit?
The point is that I am not sure there has been much change in position of voters since then. The stalemate is playing out in terms of figuring out if, where, and/or how to go forward.
I suspect G-6.0106b is going to remain in the BoO unchanged, while the battle will go on regarding its overall applicability.
Again, thanks for your work.
Bob,
Thanks for the thoughts. I think you have a very valid point.
Because it was
1) Easier
2) Simpler
3) How almost everyone else was doing it
I have also been doing the comparison to the last vote in 2001-2002. Looking at the complete history is clearly a more valid way to go because it would help avoid the fatigue factor you mentioned as well as weather issues and presbyteries voting late that year after it was effectively decided and some didn’t care if it didn’t make a difference.
Looking at the four-vote history, like I did for Cayuga-Syracuse in the previous post, some of the trends hold up across the whole voting history. And sometimes, like you suggest, the pattern is more erratic.
At this point I have a bunch of statistics accumulated, probably more than 99.99% of people care about. Within that data I think there are some very valuable insights into the denomination. In a month or so, as I try to present some of the more salient results, I will try to consider the full voting history.
Thanks for the encouragement.
Yes, we do pray the presbyteries will discern God’s will.
His Word reveals His will- homosexual behavior is an abomination in his sight. It harms those who engage in it. Those who give themselves over to it will not inherit the Kingdom of God (cf I Cor. 6:9)