Lunch, If We Have the Stomach for It

This is how the politics is being played-out, at least as I understand it (I am learning [too much] as I go). Those who have crafted and advanced The Traditional Plan, which strengthens existing exclusionary language and mandates swift consequences for transgressions, realize they have a problem: the Judicial Council has already ruled over 40% of the Plan unconstitutional. A Modified version was also found to be lacking in constitutional merit.

This morning, many people rose to offer amendments to the latest plan in hopes of patching-up the issues. That could have been a long process, and no guarantee the holes would have been plugged.  

The legislative strategy for those who oppose the TP or MTP was, therefore, to close debate and vote to pass the MTP, in order to advance it to tomorrow’s plenary. From there, if it is passed, it will be referred to the JC again, and if it is once again found unconstitutional, then we will end-up exactly where we are now.

Several attempts were made to refer the plan to JC today, but by the technicalities of Roberts’ Rules of Order, we cannot do that till tomorrow (today we are a “legislative committee,” not a “plenary session,” though the membership of the two is the same). UPDATE: SEE BELOW

Meanwhile, we are debating and voting on Disaffiliation motions. You can find these resolutions in the Advanced Daily Christian Advocate, pp 205 (Taylor, 90066), pp. 201 (Boyette). 

We are using language like “good divorce,” “bad divorce,” “burning the house down as we walk out the door,” “wrecking the connection.”

Both Taylor and Boyette have now passed. We will take a lunch break, if anyone has the stomach for it.

BUT, there is a new ruling on the floor now that the committee CAN refer the TP we just passed to JC. I suspect that will happen right away.

My lip is quivering and I have a really bad headache. Pray for the Conference.