Category: General Conference

In today’s session, we dove into the details of the Traditional Plan, two petitions for disaffiliation and the One Church Plan.

It was disheartening to read a statement report in the United Methodist News service by Bishop Karen Oliveto. Bishop Oliveto, “who leads the Mountain Sky Conference and is the denomination’s first openly gay bishop, spoke to a gathering of LGBTQ saying “We are going to bring our love, our connection, our spirit, our joy because the church would die without us. Your life has meaning, your love inspires me, I keep going because you keep going” (UMNS Feb. 25, 2019, emphasis mine.) In my humble opinion, the vitality and life of the church are dependent on Jesus, the Lord of the Church, and not on any individual or group of individuals.

An attempt to postpone action on the Traditional plan failed, and the plan was debated and passed through the Legislative committee. An effort to reprioritize and delay discussion of the Traditional Plan (TP). The motion failed.

Several objections were raised which claimed that the Traditional plan was “not loving,” and “not of God.” These two objections, and others, claim to know what God wants apart from the Scripture. It is incredible that when traditionalists use arguments like this, they are criticized by progressives.

The assumption that the only loving thing is to allow a person to do whatever that person wants to do, but this is not the case. The word “no” is a loving response in many situations. I am reminded of the story of Jesus and the rich young ruler (Mark 10:17-22). Sometimes the most loving thing you can tell a person is, no.

On a similar note, the word “harm” has been used extensively in these discussions. The notion that because certain people are not granted privileges, they have been harmed in some way is a typical charge against those who hold to more conservative viewpoints. Disagreement and a lack of endorsement are not harm. Harm is defined as physical or mental damage in the 11th edition of Webster’s Dictionary.  John Wesley’s rules for his Societies were to Do no harm, do good and attend upon all the ordinances of God. Wesley had specific things in mind when he said: “do no harm” (see the full rule here). To disagree with a person or tell a person they are not eligible for a specific privilege is not doing harm.

I was disappointed that it seemed that proponents of the TP were unable to distribute supplemental materials. If, as Maxie Dunham stated, he was not allowed to present the additional materials until it was offered on the floor, why did the Secretary of the Conference say otherwise? I have sent that question to those in the know, hopefully, they will respond soon.

The Traditional Plan was criticized on the floor of Conference for being wholly unconstitutional; however, that is not the case. Out of the 16 petitions needed to implement the Traditional Plan 8 were deemed to be unconstitutional. These issues could be fixed with small adjustments just as supporters of the One Church Plan (OCP) did during the discussion of that plan.

When the OCP came up for a vote, they offered no less than four amendments to bring their petitions in line with the Constitution, but they criticized proponents of the Traditional plan for doing the same thing.

Two disaffiliation petitions or gracious exit petitions passed.

One argument for the OCP is that people in churches often disagree and are able to do ministry together. That is true, not everyone sees eye to eye in local churches, and yet ministry can still happen. It is one thing to have disagreements in a local church, it is another to enshrine those differences in denominational policies which seek to soften or deny the Scriptural teaching.

It was amazing to me that some of the most impassioned pleas against the OCP came from Russia, a nation that was officially atheistic not so long ago. While OCP proponents claim that their plan would not affect the Central (overseas) Conference, it was demonstrated that by changing the definition of marriage in the Social Principles would affect them.

Another plan which was debated was the Simple Plan. In essence, the Simple plan removes all prohibitions against same-sex issues and hope to level the field so the church can be fully inclusive. After abundant discussion and debate, the Simple Plan was rejected and will not be forwarded to the Plenary session of General Conference.

This ended the Legislative session, and tomorrow the decisions will be presented to the General Conference Plenary session for final action.

One note on tomorrows session: I understand we must vacate the arena promptly at 6:30 pm so the staff can begin hauling in dirt for a monster truck rally. No really!

We began this Sunday and the first legislative day of the Special Session of General Conference in Worship. Bishop Ken Carter of the Florida AC preached from Ephesians on being people of the cross and the flame.

Bishop Carter was one of three bishops assigned to the Commission on a Way Forward. He has been an ardent supporter of the One Church Plan.

His sermon was based on Ephesians 2:13ff. He began to talk about the goodness of our connection and the good that has been done through it. I, too, applaud all the UMC has been able to do because we are connected.

However, much of his sermon was a lesson in taking scripture out of context. When Paul said that Jesus had “broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us” (Ephesians 2:14) he was not talking about the divide that exists between those who differ on the issues of human sexuality. Human sexuality was a settled issue for Paul even though he lived in a sexually pluralistic society. He was talking about the division between Jew and Gentile.

The barrier refers to the wall of separation that existed in the temple to keep Gentiles from coming into the space allotted to the Jewish people. By implication, it could also refer to the barrier that sin erected between God and us, as Bishop Carter rightly stated, “God overcame the division of our sin and God’s holiness.”

He then seemed to scold those who support the traditional plan by saying that schism is never God’s plan for revival. That is hard to maintain when confronted with the Reformation and Wesley’s formation of the Methodist’s in America. Those who support the Traditional plan do not want schism, they want those who violate the Book of Discipline to be held accountable. The Discipline’s, which has been reaffirmed at every General Conference since 1972, reflects the teachings of the historic church down through the ages, while advocating the worth and dignity of every person. Are the schismatics those who live up to our common covenant or those who break the covenant? By the way, every person who has broken the covenant agreed that the church’s doctrine and polity were in line with Holy Scripture when they were ordained.

Bishop Carder asked the conference, “Have we done everything to maintain the unity of the Spirit?” It is a good question. We should bend over backwards to make sure we are not mean-spirited or unloving, but the unity of the Spirit is not the same as the unity of the institution. The Holy Spirit produces unity in the body of Christ as a natural byproduct of the Spirit’s presence, so we should do everything to maintain what the Spirit produces. However, the UMC is just one manifestation of the body of Christ, not the whole thing.

Report from the Commission on a Way Forward

The next two hours, at a minimum, was spent on hearing the report from the commission which brought us the three plans. After some general remarks, one person from the commission spoke and commended each plan: The One Church Plan, the Connectional Conference Plan, and the Modified Traditional plan. We should all be grateful for the work these individuals did with the task assigned to them.

The GC then began to prioritizing the work they would do in dealing with these plans and the additional petitions sent to the conference. Each plan or petition was presented to the Conference, and each delegate voted whether the item was a high priority or a low priority. The percentage of high priority votes an item received determined the order in which the item would be discussed in the legislative committee. While the list was exhaustive here are the highlights: the petitions from Wespath, dealing with pension issues received the highest percentage (64%) of high priority votes, followed by the Traditional Plan at 56% and two petitions for disaffiliation with the UMC (50% and 50% respectively). The One Church Plan came in fifth with 49% of the vote, followed by the Simple Plan (19%) and the Connectional Conference Plan (12%). The other petitions were scattered in the lower 15 items.

When these numbers were announced, I experienced a palpable silence in the arena as if people were surprised by the result.

The conference then elected leaders for the legislative committee of the whole to fine tune each of the items and recessed, to be reconvened as a legislative committee. During this break, a group of disillusioned advocates for LGBTQI persons began chanting in the lobby, “Hate divides!” Later about 20 of them walked through the Observer area chanting, “Hate divides, love provides.” The presiding bishop continued the work of the conference, and after a few minutes, the protesters were asked to leave by the ushers.

The Legislative committee dealt with the pension issue and then adjourned about 40 minutes early. The Traditional plan will be on the agenda the first thing in the morning. Worship is scheduled from 8:00 am to 8:20, and after a brief break, I assume the work will begin.

There is more I could write, but it is late, and I’m tired. So, till tomorrow…