"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.