Presbyterians and LGBTQ Ordination – Can it Pass? (An Analysis)

This post is what happens when a politico has a hard time adjusting to his new life in Divinity School.  I’m not strategizing for either side in this post (although I’m pretty sure most folks could guess my beliefs on the matter), but rather offering a synopsis of all the data I could get my hands on.  The PC(USA) is a democracy, after all, and that means – at least to me – that they get their own pundits and analysts, too. ; )

image thieved from here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluheron/2245615041/

So now that we’ve established the basics for Presbyterian governance, the role of General Assembly, and the recent goings-on concerning the PC(USA) and LGBT issues, let’s get to the fun questions.  While I understand that lots of things concerning LGBTQ issues were passed at GA, this post is just going to focus on the question of LGBTQ ordination within the PC(USA) – that is, can this thing actually pass?

My short answer: yes, but it’ll probably be really close either way. (which is a big change in and of itself)

My long answer:

First, let’s establish what we’re talking about.  As mentioned in my previous post, the 219th General Assembly (GA) voted in favor of a motion to strike something called G-6.0106b (yes, our church actually names things like that) from our Book of Order and replace it with new language.  To oversimplify things: the old language explicitly prohibited LGBTQ folks from being pastors, the new language potentially reverses this and allows LGBTQ folks to be your new favorite preacher man/woman.

So, to review: GA – the highest body of the church aside from Christ himself – voted to pass this thing.

But here things get touchy;  This overture concerning G-6.016b would potentially change our Book of Order, or the denomination’s constitution.  As such, it – just like if an amendment to the US Constitution were passed by congress – needs to be “ratified” by the “majority” of the presbyteries in the country, which I’m assuming is a simple majority vote (more than 50%).  So, even though every Presbytery in country sent voting representatives to GA, the fact that it passed GA means that each presbytery must now vote to approve it.  Translation: instead of one or two presbytery representatives voting on stuff at GA (think congress), the amendment must now be voted on by a group of pastors and elders (think state house/senate) from each presbytery.  There are 173 presbyteries, and they get about a year to get their stuff together and vote.

Now, one would assume that the presbyteries would probably roughly correlate with their GA representatives and vote for the change to G-6.016b, right?

No. That would be silly, and would make way too much sense.

This isn’t the first time that the General Assembly has voted to change G-6.016b.  In fact, it has actually happened TWICE before – once in 2001 (or the 213th GA), and once in 2008 (or the 218th GA).  Technically speaking, these were different overtures (they were pushes to change the language of G-6.016b rather than strike/replace it), but the effect was the same: they allowed for LGBTQ people to be pastors.

Yet despite passing at GA, both votes failed to get a majority of votes when they were voted on by presbyteries.

With these examples in mind, it is perhaps helpful to use them as a base for how this year’s vote will pan out.  As luck would have it, an individual named Bruce Hahne has kept a giant Google spreadsheet detailing the vote tallies of both previous overtures.  As such, I’ve used his (presumably accurate) information to build some maps and make some projections from this data.

So let’s see what we’ve got:

Below is the vote from 2001-2002, or from the overture passed at the 213th General Assembly:

Click to embiggen (it's big, so it'll take a second to load)

MAP NOTES: I chose white and blue for no other reason other than they were the colors in my Photoshop palette, and because it was easier to create that way (if i had to do it over again, I would choose other colors, but these maps were such a PAIN to create in the first place that I’m going to leave them this way – so deal).  Also, I have no idea what the heck that thing is in the middle of Puerto Rico.  It’s just…there.  Oh, and the pictures look like they use green, but it’s blue if you click on them to make them larger.  I have no idea what that is about.

As you can see, the motion fell far, far short of the votes needed.  The final tally was 46 presbyteries voting YES and 126 presbyteries voting NO, although 1 presbytery did not vote and 2 presbyteries “tied” with a 50/50 split (which apparently counts as a NO vote).

Now compare that with a more recent vote on the same issue in 2008-2009, or from the overture passed at the 218th General Assembly:

click to embiggen (again, it'll take a second to load)

Obviously, there were significant gains for the LGBTQ community this time around.  While the overture was still defeated, the vote was much closer with 78 presbyteries voting YES and 94 presbyteries voting NO, although 1 presbytery did not vote and three presbyteries had 50/50 votes (seriously, didn’t anyone ever hear of “ties” going to the runner or flipping a coin?).  If one accounts for the raw votes cast – that is, the raw number of “Yes” and “No” votes – the final tally was 48.8% yes, 51.2% no.

So, understanding that we’re only using two data points (which isn’t the best indicator) what can we learn from these maps?

1)  Geography doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

I don’t know about any of you, but the 2008 Presidential election conditioned me to see our country in terms of how certain regions vote.  The average voter in Oklahoma, for instance, is probably going lean more conservative, whereas the average voter in San Francisco is probably going to lean more liberal.  Simple enough.

Our two maps, however, showcase a stunning reality: geography doesn’t really mean anything when it comes to how a presbytery votes on LGBTQ ordination.  Part of this, of course, has to do with the demographic in question.  Most Presbyterians are older, white, wealthy and – obviously – Christian.  However, what it means to be an older, white and wealthy person changes from region to region.  A wealthy white Christian in Texas, for instance, is not necessarily the same type of person – theologically or politically – as a wealthy white Christian in New York.  Moreover, the Presbyterian distinction further complicates matters, as Presbyterian churches attract different people in different places, and those churches, in turn, elect different elders who end up voting in these presbytery votes.

By way of example, this is a side-by-side comparison of 2008-2009 Presbyterian vote on ordination and a county-by-county map of the 2008 Presidential General Election:

Unfortunately, John King was unavailable. But you're free to try to drag this image around your screen with your fingers and make "whoosh!" sounds.

While there is some loose correlation between the two maps, it’s essentially a crapshoot as to whether or not they agree.  You will notice that the Presbytery of Utah voted for LGBTQ ordination.  Flippin’ Utah.

Furthermore, you’ll also notice that two presbyteries changed their YES votes from 2001 to NO votes in 2008.  One of these presbyteries was flippin’ San Francisco.

Clearly, geography (other than the Northeast remaining solidly pro-LGBTQ ordination) isn’t going to tell us anything.

2)  There is a definite trend to towards supporting LGBTQ ordination.

Obviously, the visual increase of blue YES votes on the presbytery voting map means that a lot of presbyteries are becoming more amiable to the idea of LGBTQ ordination.  What the maps don’t show, however, are the 121 presbyteries that shifted their vote closer towards LGBTQ ordination.  Of these 121, 9 are within 5-7% of flipping, usually with an increase of 10% or more in favor of LGBTQ ordination since 2001.  This is a significant and dramatic increase, and plays well for folks who favor LGBTQ ordination.

All told, the 2008 vote flipped 34 presbyteries and lost 2, with a net gain of 32 Presbyteries in a 6-8 year period.

3)  Showing up makes all the difference (and other wild speculation)

As previously mentioned, one of the presbyteries that flipped from a “Yes” vote in 2001 to a “No” vote in 2008 was San Francisco Presbytery.  While this may initially seem counter-intuitive, the actual voting numbers reveal a peculiarity:

Let’s first state the obvious: it seems odd that San Francisco Presbytery would vote against LGBTQ ordination in the first place, much less FLIPPING from one to another with a dramatic 5.2% shift.

How do we explain this?  Firstly, you’ll notice that there are simply less people in attendance in 2008 than there were in 2001.  I’m just speculating here, but I imagine there are two things at work in this scenario (and if someone who was there knows otherwise, PLEASE let me know!):

A) A church (or two) closed in San Francisco, resulting in fewer numbers.

B) In addition to the above, the opposing side (in this case, “No” voters) simply brought more voting-eligible people to the meeting.  This could also have been a result of the energy surrounding the Prop-8 battle (the SF vote was in early 2009, but I’d venture to say California was still pretty energized around the topic), but I’m just guessing at this point.

Thus, a bit of informed speculation: it would appear that a big part of this vote is about who shows up on voting day.  This may seem like a no-brainer, but getting that many pastors and elders in one place on one day is hard.  In fact, I’d venture to say that these votes are a lot like caucuses (think the Iowa Caucus): whichever side has more energized and/or organized supporters who get there on the day of wins.

4)  The Final Projections

There are a lot – a LOT – of unknowns and variables here.  Again, we’re only using two data points, which is certainly not ideal, and – if our data is any indication – presbytery votes can often be wildly unpredictable (the two presbyteries who achieved a 50/50 split in votes in 2001, for instance, both ended up voting against the pro-LGBTQ overture in 2008-2009).

Still, there are a number of scenarios that could be extrapolated from the data provided.  For instance, if one assumes that there is an 8-year gap in the voting periods (which is a liberal estimate – it’s really, 6-8 years, depending on when a presbytery voted), then the pro-LGBTQ legislation has a net gain of roughly 4 presbyteries a year (again, a conservative estimate).  If that trend were to hold true again in the 2010-2011 voting cycle, then the pro-LGBTQ group could pick up 8 presbyteries. This would make the vote 86 “Yes” votes and 86 “No” votes, or a 50/50 split.  This assumes that one presbytery – a tiebreaker – again refuses to vote, which has happened in both votes (although the presbytery that refused to vote in 2008 – Midwest Hamni – was heavy against LGBTQ ordination in 2001).

That, of course, is a very simple (perhaps overly-simple) extrapolation.  If, however, we list the presbyteries that are most “in play” – or trending within 5-7% of flipping in either direction – we get this list:

You’ll notice that I have only included four presbyteries that are above 50%.  This is because Grand Canyon Presbytery, San Jose Presbytery, de Cristo Presbytery and Boston presbytery are the only Presbyteries between 50-57% that are actually trending down, or towards a no vote.  All other presbyteries (with the exception of San Francisco) in the 43%-57% bracket are trending strongly towards LGBTQ ordination.  Clearly, the momentum is with those pushing for LGBTQ ordination.

With this information, the most feasible best-case scenario for anti-LGBTQ ordination supporters would be a dramatic reversal of recent voting trends, resulting in a net gain of around 2-4 presbyteries for “No” voters.

More likely, however, is that votes will continue to trend towards LGBTQ ordination, producing a number of “better” case scenarios for it supporters.  This makes the possibility of picking up 8-9 presbyteries for pro-LGBTQ supporters entirely feasible – albeit difficult – especially if the 50/50 split presbyteries continue their pro-LGBTQ ord trend and flip.

So, as I said before, it looks like this one could pass, but it’s going to be a close one.

If you think I’m wrong or want weigh in, however, let me know: hit up the comments box below and let me know how you feel.  Or conversely, you can crunch the data yourself and draw your own conclusions!

Advertisement