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.<\/p>\n
The headline from yesterday is that of the four presbyteries voting, three switched votes from their previous position.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
So, thanks to PresbyWeb<\/a>, here is what happened yesterday…<\/p>\n 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.)<\/p>\n Salem and Wabash Valley switched from no to yes. 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.)<\/p>\n 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.)<\/p>\n 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.)<\/p>\n East coast blogs are starting to pick it up and you can count on John Shuck for a lively response<\/a>:<\/p>\n This is an embarrassment. The presbytery of San Francisco<\/p>\n voted No on amendment B last night 167-177. San Francisco has the honor of being the only presbytery Looks to me like they took it for granted while the opposition organized.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [Editorial note: We down here in SoCal claim Jack Rogers now. ]<\/p>\n As news and blogs respond to the vote I’ll add updates to this post.<\/p>\n Update: 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<\/a>‘ 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.<\/p>\n Update:<\/u> 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<\/a> about the vote in general that included yesterday’s votes in the tally but no reporting on any of the presbytery meetings themselves.<\/p>\n Probably the most interesting comment so far has been by Clay Allard on his blog The Right Side of the Trinity<\/a>. (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:<\/p>\n Now That the Voting Is Over<\/b><\/p>\n What an interesting sense of humor God has. As Amendment 08-B moves to and he closes with<\/p>\n Let’s spend some time outside of our own echo chambers, not acting like Also, More Light Presbyterians has an article<\/a> up about the San Francisco vote and the significance of the presbytery meeting being held at Walnut Creek Presbyterian Church.<\/p>\n Elsewhere, Wrestling With Wrelevance<\/a> and Life Along The Homeschooling Journey<\/a> comment on the San Francisco vote and the almost-defeat of 08-B. The Reformed Pastor<\/a> has reaction to both the San Francisco vote as well as the Layman article.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,3,40,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-618","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ga-business","category-news","category-ordination-standards","category-pcusa"],"yoast_head":"\n
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.)<\/p>\n\n
\nto switch from equality to inequality in this year’s voting. Last time
\nthe vote was 216-186. That means 40 commissioners decided they had
\nbetter things to do than to show up for the meeting. <\/p>\n
The Layman has posted an article<\/a> 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<\/a> sets 87 as passage.<\/p>\n
\ndefeat, I was sure that the Puerto-Rican presbyteries would deliver the
\ncoup-de-grace. But instead– it’s SAN FRANCISCO?! I think that it’s
\ntime to examine all the ideas and attitudes that have been slain by
\nthis vote.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nthis is a football game and we are just “fans” of our side. Instead of
\nfiguring out a strategy of beating “them,” why don’t we find out who
\n“they” are, and what they want? Why don’t we act like we are not
\ncompeting for some prize, but that we are trying to be faithful to
\nChrist? The voting is over– let the learning begin.
\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n