Day Two is a Wrap

Friends-- it has been a long couple of days. I am most gratified that this blog has received, as of 10:52 p.m. tonight, more than 1600 views (this is more than the sales of my books combined! Well, not quite, but still quite a number!). I thank you and pray that my reactions and impressions have not misguided you at all or been camouflage, but have helped you a bit as you have tried to do your own processing about the General Conference.

On a personal note: I have eaten badly, slept poorly, and consumed too much... well, I am in St. Louis after all!

One more day to go. Tomorrow we will be looking at Wespath Plan (which has to do with church property, pensions and the like), the Traditional Plan (which is the only plan that survived today's debate and legislative voting), and two Exit or Disaffilliation plans.

As to matters related to Wespath, there is still considerable discussion as to what it will "cost" a church that wishes to leave the denomination with their property (which is held in trust for the Annual Conference). Right now, there is talk of the equivalent of two years of Conference apportionments, some amount related to pension... the exact amount would vary from church to church. Whether churches could afford such a pay-out is a live topic. I doubt we will get more specific information than the above on tomorrow.

As regards the Traditional Plan, cynicism reigns--at least among the folk with whom I have talked.  There is a rumor that some of the most vocal advocates of this plan will get it passed, then leave the denomination anyway to start their own ("setting the house on fire as you close the door" is the language that has been used). The plan as it was originally advanced ran afoul, last fall, of the Judicial Council, but tomorrow will see us attempt to "perfect" the motions.

If the restrictive language is tightened and the investigative/punitive aspects ratcheted-up, no telling where that will leave many pastors and churches, bishops and annual conferences.

My suspicion is that Boards of Ordained Ministry will receive WAY more than the usual requests for early retirement (a friend told me tonight that while s/he had not really thought about retirement till this week, and could not have imagined this conference prompting such thoughts, s/he now thinks "sooner rather than later," and maybe much sooner; and "if I have to sign some sort of oath of allegiance to the new rules, WAY sooner").

If the TP is defeated (not likely), we would leave St. Louis $5 million poorer and in exactly the same square we were in Saturday morning. Of course, for some supporters of the OCP, better poorer and where we were than where we might end up if the TP passes.

Then there is the matter of Exit or Disaffiliation Plans. If you are interested, you may find the five plans here--though only two of them passed from today and into tomorrow. The Boyette Plan and the Taylor Plan are the last ones listed and described in the link.

http://www.umglobal.org/2019/02/what-are-differences-between-five-exit.html?m=1

Friends in the know say we should "root" for the Taylor Plan, as the Boyette plan guts the agencies and depletes reserves so that the agencies will be crippled from the get-go.

Again, some are in favor or torching the place. But what we hope and pray for is a gracious exit. 

I will try to keep you posted tomorrow. You may of course watch the live stream.

And as a part of that you may choose also to see, as a PiP, the ESL presentation.

I was reminded of that this afternoon when I had a chance today to talk for about 15 minutes to my friend Michelle Provart Menefee, the ESL interpreter I met last summer in Dallas. It was so good seeing her again! 

Members of HLUMC may remember that I preached a sermon with Michelle as the primary illustration: how mesmerized I was watching her work that conference because she absolutely inhabited the language of the presentations. I was speechless, but tearful, watching her work. In my sermon I talked about how, for example, it is one thing to play notes and another to perform music. That it is one thing to know some sign language (I know a few signs), and another to inhabit and interpret the ESL translation (as she does).

I said it was one thing to say some bible verses or cite some Jesus stories, but another thing--called incarnation and holiness--to inhabit the gospel in such a way that it becomes art and music and authentic testimony (maybe I should have preached that sermon here!).

Turns out, Michelle has interpreted (including this one) the last four General Conferences and will most likely also be in Minneapolis. She told me to tell you that you can find the ESL on the English stream, though she herself will not be on it tomorrow as her duties will focus on deaf delegates.

May God grant us all sleep and peace and the assurance that because God is God and we are God's children, all is well. And all is well. And, as St. Julian said, all manner of things shall be well.  

The Simple Plan

Regarding the Request for Declaratory Decision: 54% vote to refer/request.

Now, a Simple Plan.

First speaker: For: The church is not safe/sacred space for all God’s children. I am child of mission, and mission will allow all people to come in.

Second speaker: Against: A southern CA preacher, who is African-American, both gay and a veteran, speaking of his fear that the Simple Plan that is not radical enough, that it does not go far enough. He lives with fear on account of his race, and with fear in the church because we do not welcome. We have been loud about money, and property and who is excluded…but silent about the excluded children of the church.

Third Speaker: For: German delegate who dreams that on Wednesday there will be no distinctions at all and will stand for the Kingdom of God.

Fourth Speaker: Against: Mexican delegate, passionate, but I have no translation device (but see below).

Fifth Speaker: For: A Western Pennsylvania woman whose pastor is very conservative but finds the descriptions in the Social Principles to disrupt his focus on ministering by telling him that some of whom he serves are described as sinful.

Sixth Person: Against: A Russian woman who, while they have a strong regard for all of creation, fears the changing of the language will drive the church further underground (for in Russia, homosexuality is a crime) and the church will not be able to be a welcoming community as they try to grow. The acceptance of the Simple Plan will cause the rejection of the church out of hand by the culture.

Seventh Person: For: A self-identified Queer lay woman from New York: The Simple Plan does not call for anyone to believe anything they do not believe. It simply allows LBGTQI+ to live freely in their context in their church. To be equated with “alcoholics” (as the speaker above from Mexico) is insulting.

Eighth Person: Against: A self-identified Queer woman clergy from New England: the sins of silence and fear cannot be undone by the deletion of the language. It cannot make a real difference. We can confess but we cannot change. This plan does nothing to bind people to a welcoming and repentant lifestyle. It is time for more that doing no harm; it is time for doing good.

Vote to close debate: needs two-thirds: debate is closed.

Support Simple Plan: 323 (40%)

The Rainbow Volcano Just Erupted

The matter before us was "referral for a declaratory decision" as to the constitutionality of the Traditional Plan. There were speeches for and against that referral, which only requires a one-third vote to sustain. A young man rose to speak, wearing a rainbow stole, a reserve lay delegate, who began to speak of the "crucifixion of the church," and how if we pass a plan that contains parts we already anticipate will be ruled unconstitutional (as many parts of the Traditional Plan have been), that it will cause inestimable harm to the witness of young, progressive Christians like him who are in secular settings but have been able to share the love of Jesus with folk who have never heard a gospel of grace but only a gospel of judgment. He spoke with the fire of a tent preacher, and before his three minutes were done half the bishops, a third of the delegates and a lot of the observers were on their feet clapping. I was too slow with my camera to catch the man or the moment, but it was a moment.

The Chair called for a break, and now clusters of delegates are huddling. Between the "matter of dignity," which was a somber moment, and the eruption of the Rainbow Volcano, which was unbridled, the Conference is in an interesting dither at this point.

We still have to vote on referral for the declaratory decision, and we have to hear from the Simple Plan supporters. We are scheduled to go for 2 more hours and we may need it. Stay tuned.

"A matter of dignity..."

Predictably, there was a motion to bundle the rest of the petitions and dismiss them. Several of the LGBTQI folk asked to exempt The Simple Plan for a consideration of it. It is clear it will not pass--that is the resolution simply to remove the discriminatory language in The Discipline--but several of the delegates including Adam Hamilton have asked that the Simple Plan be discussed as a way of honoring the folk around whom this conference has been called. As a matter of dignity, he said.

The delegates passed the amendment, though 370+ plus voted against it. And so we will talk about it for a while.

Now, another motion also to exempt the Connectional Conference Plan as a way to find a third way that might allow for continued unity. This motion had no chance and was soundly defeated.

So, we are back to the bundle: dismissing all other petitions except for The Simple Plan. The motion passes, meaning we will hear from supporters of the Simple Plan.

Tomorrow, the Plenary will consider the matters approved today. The Traditional Plan and one of the Exit (Disaffiliation) plans will be referred to Judicial Council, perhaps for a declaratory decision as to the constitutionality of The Traditional Plan. If the JC declares the amended TP unconstitutional, there is a good chance we will leave hear at Square One.

The One Church Plan...

No surprise here, really. After the more-or-less deprioritizing of the petition yesterday (though it had received two-thirds of the bishops' support when it came as the recommendation from the Commission on the Way Forward), the prevailing sense was that it would not be passed today.

The debate moved predictably: those against the One Church Plan argued for a way of reading the Bible that sees the strict injunctions as normative, and other mitigating or redefining texts as less authoritative. Those who were for the One Church Plan appealed to our historic unity, and our current missions and ministries and the need for "contextualization." Those against the OCP called contextualization by another name: congregationalism. Those for the OCP noted that contextualization is the way we work already in a whole lot of ways.

Jesus' words on marriage were invoked; so was the fact that Jesus' answers may not have been to our question (much as the Good Samaritan redefines the lawyer's question about neighbor).

A man from Liberia, another from Congo, a man and a woman from Russia and one from the Philippines spoke in their own languages (contextualization) as to their hopes and fears. The two from Russia suggested the OCP would destroy the Church in Russia, though nothing in the plan demand any conference change their current stance on human sexuality, marriage or ordination.

Tensions rose incrementally through the afternoon, and "points of order" were continually raised as a ways to camouflage speeches for and against, but I found myself thinking the will of the body was already evident. At 3:22, a second vote was taken to close debate and call the question. At 3:25, the vote was taken on the One Church Plan. Here is the vote:

Again, today is technically a "legislative committee" meeting, designed to debate, amend and perfect the motions that will be voted on tomorrow in the "plenary session." Because this is a special called conference to discuss the one issue related to human sexuality and its correlates, the same delegates who vote in the plenary also constitute the legislative committee.

In other years, there would be any number of legislative committees working on the many sections of the Book of Discipline. Delegates would be assigned to one of these committees. This session, there is only one matter before us, and so all the delegates are serving in both capacities.

Whatever is passed today will be forwarded to tomorrow's Plenary Session for final vote. The failure of the One Church Plan today means it will not come up tomorrow.   

That was fun...

And we needed a bit of fun... The amendment was rather inconsequential, and failed for lack of a majority.

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.  

At 11:34, EST, 10:34 Central...

The Traditional Plan was passed. Now, the Plan will head to the Plenary on tomorrow, and should it be passed, it will be referred to the Judicial Council, and perhaps earlier. Over 40% of the plan as it was originally crafted was ruled Unconstitutional, and even after modifications it has not been made workable according to our Constitution. We are now considering motions on Disaffiliation, which is a terrible word, but if we are to divide I would hope we can find a gracious way to bless each other as we do. As Abraham said to Lot, "If you take the right, I will take the left. If you take the left, I will take the right. We are kin."

Also, see this article: https://religionnews.com/2019/02/22/united-methodists-should-acknowledge-reality-that-they-are-no-longer-united/?fbclid=IwAR19PULMgV_Ju_d4Au1GQkMOLzyJZBpWSPiXB3K3WtSQn-_lN950cOuN7kA

Adam Hamilton on the Bible

https://mailchi.mp/unitingmethodists/newsletter-2019-02-25?e=c9fdcf1b16

Another irreplaceable chunck of a finite and rapidly passing existence

We have been here for 90 minutes, ninety precious minutes, and we are nowhere further along than we were. I keep thinking about the ways Hawthorne Lane, the street, has been dug and re-dug for 2 years, now, and in Tommy Lawing’s words, “we’ve yet to see a foot of track.”

A bit of background… the Traditional Plan is before us. Las fall, several sections of it were ruled unconstitutional according to the Church’s Constitution. Today, the folk who are advancing the plan are trying to amend it on the fly to make it pass muster. It would be a long process if it could be done. But this is the stated agenda of Good News and WCA—the more conservative of our brothers and sisters.

We have spent a good amount of irreplaceable time debating and voting on the amendments, while the main question about the Traditional Plan has received only two speeches so far, both in the negative.

The mood among the supporters of Once Church, Connectional Conference and The Simple Plan is pretty somber. It is reported this morning that Adam Hamilton, one of the leading voices behind the Once Church Plan, was weeping last night with the realization that OCP is, it would appear, dead.

Now, a ruling this morning says that today the delegates could advance both the Traditional Plan and another plan to tomorrow’s “plenary” (technically, while the delegates are the same one to the other, today’s meeting is a “legislative” session to consider all the motions before us, so as to decide which are up for a final vote and in what form; the “plenary” tomorrow is vested with the authority to pass the actual legislation). It is hard to imagine, though, that we would advance more than one, or that tomorrow’s votes would not echo yesterday’s prioritization or today’s vote (if we ever get to it)…

If we do, though, we duke it out tomorrow. I suspect the fight will begin in a few. Already the clichés are  being weaponized: Love! Bible! Exclusion! Doctrinal Unity!

The second speech in Russian has taken us to break as the translation equipment has failed. They are working to fix it.

Stay tuned.