Wrap-Up

So, GC2012 is a wrap. Here's a final video showing some of the highlights of the time our delegation spent together. Things didn't quite go the way we had hoped; but God isn't finished with us, yet!

God Bless,

Mary Spradlin

What I Have Learned

General Conference 2012 ended with a painful whimper. This is not the Conference we wanted to have. Many of us sat in airport shuttles this morning asking, "What have we accomplished?" "Was this a waste of time?"

I hope not.

In spite of the disappointments, I know I have learned a great deal. And I pray that my ministry, and the ministry of my church, will be improved because of my experience.

What have I learned?

Rev. Mark Holland of Trinity
UMC, Kansas City, KS. Mark
and I were undergraduates
together at SMU.

• There is great value in having a Conference of sufficient magnitude that Methodist clergy and laity from across the denomination are able to meet and network with one another. I hope to continue the new friendships I have made with people like David Bard (MN), Kama Hamilton Morton (MT), Amy Lippolt (KS), Gary Mueller (NTX), Laura Merrill (SWTX), Jeff Lust (NM), Amy Gearhart (MO), Jan Davis (NTX) and many others. I had not met any of these people before General Conference began, and I value this time that we had to meet people across the connection. I was also able to reconnect with friends from seminary and undergraduate years who are now serving churches. I know I can call on these friends as I seek counsel and inspiration for ministry in the future; and I believe there is great value in this kind of relationship building, as we seek together to learn how to be more effective in ministry.

• I have learned that there is a lot of legislation that was passed on the consent calendar that will have implications for the church - but I don't know what all of them were. In the busyness of our plenary sessions, there simply wasn't time to see what had been approved by each of the 13 committees and therefore included in bulk on the consent calendar. It is easy to sit today in stunned silence believing that our work here was anything but fruitful. But I know we did make some progress - I just haven't quite sorted out what it was, yet!

• I have been reminded that there is great value in moments of still silence and prayer with our God. We prayed frequently at General Conference, and often these prayers were offered spontaneously at times of deep distress. But the invitation to pray was, to my recollection, always followed immediately by words spoken from the podium. They were eloquent words, and they were spoken from the heart. But sometimes, I believe, we just need silence. Especially in times of deep distress, maybe we just need a time to breathe and pray and not hear any more words. I need to remember this.

I am grateful to have been mentored by
Bishop Minerva Carcano.

• I am more deeply convinced that worship helps connect us to God. In spite of my yearning for moments of stillness in plenary, we did close each evening with worship; and each evening it did feel, for me, as though we'd returned our focus, if only for the moment, to the One who called us into being, as humans and as a denomination.

• I have an increased appreciation for the laity of our denomination. I know that we have faithful, capable congregational leaders. I have been honored to work alongside laity on District and Conference Boards. But this brings things to a whole new level. I am glad I serve a church where representation of the laity is 50%. Laity have much wisdom and gifts of leadership to offer.

These amendments to changes to the preamble to our Social
Principles were greatly debated. A further amended form
finally passed. (I believe the words "neither belief
nor practice" have been replaced with the word "nothing.")
The words are clearly scriptural. You would think this would be a
no-brainer. But concerns about issues that divide us,
primarily those related to human sexuality, kept the vote
around 60/40.

•  I have been affirmed in my knowledge that the United Methodist Church is filled with passionate people who love Jesus Christ. An expression of our love of Christ that we share in common is our deep commitment to issues of social justice. We do not always agree on how to understand the issues, but we are not apathetic to the plight of the needy. Sometimes this passion allows us to create barriers between us, and this is painful. Sometimes our passion leads us into places of fear and distrust that our position will not have the stronger voice. And this causes us to treat even the most honest of statements (including verses of scripture) with deep suspicion: "If I agree to this honest statement, what will the consequences be?" And so we let parliamentary procedure settle the matter. This is civilized, but it does not always feel Godly. Is there a better way?

Divestment from companies fueling Israel's military occupation
of Palestinian lands was strongly urged by demonstrators.
The petition to divest was not supported.

• I have learned that the global nature of our church is an extremely complex issue. 41% of the delegates come from outside the U.S. This represents the tremendous growth of the UMC in places like Africa, and this is always something to celebrate. Our mission is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Explosive church growth in UM churches anywhere in the world is made possible by the global connection that we share. However: many of the petitions (including issues of clergy pension and security of appointment) do not affect United Methodists in our Central Conferences (outside the U.S.). But they do vote on them. 41% of the people in the room on Friday who voted on which pension plan we will use going forward will not be affected in any way by the plan. 41% of the people who voted when the body determined not to discuss guaranteed appointments on the floor do not operate under this understanding of appointment. 41% of the people who had an opportunity to amend and vote on our $603.1 million UMC budget contribute 1% of the funds to meet that budget.

Over and over and over again, legislative changes slowed to a crawl as concerns were raised about whether or not a petition reflected the diversity of the global church. Were all countries represented fairly? (And, for that matter, were women, young people, and others who are marginalized in the U.S. fairly represented?) Who was at the table when decisions were made?

 These are valid questions. In many cases, these questions need to be asked and answered. But it seems apparent to me that we cannot possibly continue to operate in the structure we are currently using. The enormous cost of flying all of the delegates to General Conference and housing them for two weeks alone is staggering. How can our Boards and Agencies operate effectively and efficiently while maintaining the kind of diversity that a global church requires? Attempts to downsize our Boards are criticized as attempts to marginalize certain people. And so, on the floor, the number is increased. And so is the cost. So Boards meet less frequently. It seems reasonable to then assume that the work of disciple-making suffers.

On the one hand, we want a truly global church. We value the voices of our brothers and sisters around the globe. Good, faithful work is being done in churches throughout our world. Jesus has sent us to make disciples "of all nations." It should not matter who pays the tab.

"The Jesus in me meets the Jesus in you." Rev. Brenda Wier of the Central Texas Conference delegation sings with our tablemate, who is from the North Katanga Conference of the Democratic Republic of Congo. I hope you will click here to see some of the amazing ministries of the United Methodist Church in North Katanga.

 On the other hand, it seems absurd that Central Conference delegates are voting on our pension and on our ordination process. Cultural understandings differ greatly among the countries of the UMC: how can we expect to easily agree on issues raised in our Book of Resolutions? Our life experiences, the culture of our societies, our understanding of racism and sexism, our true needs and even our languages differ so widely: how can we sit down together every four years and agree on a budget?

 Four years from now, I have every reason to believe that the percentage of delegates who come from outside the U.S, with the largest majority of these coming from Africa, will be greater than 50%. On matters that affect the U.S. church uniquely, it will be virtually impossible (as it is now) to tell what it is that U.S. delegates truly want. This past week, I heard many voices crying out that the young people of our (U.S.) society are not interested in being a part of a denomination that ______________.  And we desperately want young people to have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I am not certain that the Social Principles that set forth our understanding of how we are to be in relationship with God and with neighbor can possibly be expressed in ways that represent a united, faithful response from Christians who come from all parts of the globe. 

Indeed, the global nature of our church is an extremely complex issue. It seems that we want a global church, we want God to be glorified through the ministries of the UMC throughout the world, we want our denomination to reflect the diversity of God's good creation - but we simply do not know how to make this work.

Make no mistake: as long as we have local churches,
the mission and ministries of the United Methodist
Church will go on!

•  Finally (though my list is not truly complete), I learned that this messy work of the church should not and must not cloud the vital ministries of our local congregations. Why would any person want to be a member of an organization that gets so mired in Robert's Rules of Order that we can't seem to move forward on any issue, but rather seek to undo chunks of progress that have been made?  I don't know why anyone would. But I hope and pray that people want to be a part of local congregations who are in the pews and on the streets, worshiping God and loving our neighbor in thought, word and deed. I pray that people will see the People Called Methodists in their neighborhoods, working to transform the world by the ideals of God's Kingdom. I pray that those who do not yet know the love of God in Jesus Christ will come to know faithful Methodists who are living their faith every day. Every church is a mission station. This will not change. In spite of the disappointments of GC2012, our churches will continue to be faithful. We will pray, and knit prayer shawls, and stock food pantries, and go on mission trips, and visit the homebound, and engage in microfinancing, and give, and teach, and nurture, and baptize. And for this, I am grateful.

The Central Texas Delegation at General Conference 2012

Plan UMC - Again

CTC Delegates meet during 10 minute recess. to see if there is
a possible way to move forward with the restructuring of the church.

With 5 hours left in General Conference, the Judicial Council has ruled Plan UMC unconstitutional.

Wow.

A portion of the ruling from the Judicial Council.

Security of Appointment - Again

GC 2012 Lost and Found.
Not sure all of us can read the DCA!

This morning, there has been a request for the body to ask the Judicial Council for a ruling on whether or not the loss of security of appointment is constitutional. The body voted in favor of this motion, so we're awaiting a ruling from the Judicial Council.

Since this amount was not debated on the floor, there is a lot of anxiety (and, I believe, a lot of misunderstanding) about what the change will/will not mean. I am sorry that this has not been discussed on the floor, so concerns can be expressed and addressed.

For one clergyperson's assessment, click here. I would agree that this is an accurate presentation of the levels of control that are in place to monitor the actions of the bishops who decide to put clergy on transitional leave or give them a less-than-full-time appointment.

I would also say that these controls do not create certainties in the process. Two concerns that come to my mind are:

1) To say that a bishop has to report their statistics only creates so much accountability: there are no set standards that will clearly show whether or not an individual appointment (or lack therof) has been handled properly. I don't personally believe that this level of accountability, taking into the account of the nuances present in each person's call and ministry, could possibly be legislated in the Book of Discipline. However, it should be noted that the requirement for bishops to report their numbers does not include any certainty that these numbers tell a complete story. The legislation also doesn't state any consequences. These numbers will obviously be used by the Jurisdictional Committees on the Episcopacy when evaluating the work of the bishops. For myself, I have to have faith that they will understand how to use these numbers, and that  this process will work in a faithful manner.

2) If a bishop and cabinet determine that a clergyperson is not going to receive a full-time appointment, this will require the approval of the BOM and the clergy session of Annual Conference. While this creates a very real "check and balance," it allows for the possibility of a disagreement among these entities. What happens then?

Alongside these concerns, I have to say that my belief that not every contingency can be legislated has been strongly reinforced these past two weeks.

And, if I've learned anything at GC, it's that nothing is set in stone, everything is open for debate, and changes can occur every four years...if the issue gets to the floor.

Surely the Presence of the Lord is in This Place

As I write this, the Bishop Coyner is offering a prayer "that we may see God's glory in the face of everyone we see this day." He began with a reminder that, "Surely the presence of the Lord is in this place." As much as the delegates disagree this day, I hope we all believe that this is true.

We just took a break following a vote to not support the petition in favor of changing the human sexuality language in our Social Principles.

A protest group is surrounding the Communion Table in the center of the room, singing, "What does the Lord require of you?"

Before the break, and after the vote, this group gathered at the Table for a time of spontaneous Communion. Our church has not changed our language about human sexuality. And there is a lot of pain in the room.

We are now being dismissed quickly for lunch. The protest is peaceful, but it is out of order. It is expected that all non-voting delegates will be removed from within the bar of Conference by the time we return.

Tough times at GC2012.

Update

The substitue amendment proposed by Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter did not prevail. We are now back on the original petition, which can be found here (p. 270, petition #21032).

Human Sexuality

Rev. Mike Slaughter and Rev. Adam Hamilton present a substitute petition
to "commit to disagree with compassion, grace and love" on the
issue of homosexuality.

This will be an emotional day. It is clear that tension is high on the floor, as we begin to discuss an issue that evokes very strong feelings.

The discussion opened with a delegate who urged the body to not see this as something we must take sides on. The right thing to do, he said, is to tell the truth:

The church has different understandings of this issue: Many people feel that we need to take a strong stand against homosexuality, and many people feel that we should be totally inclusive...We want winners and losers, but we should be truthful about the fact that we disagree. If you need to go home and tell people we do not stand for homosexuality, then do that. But some of us need an opening to reach young people where they are. Let us vote for what is God's will - that is, that we disagree. We would prefer to have a single stance, but in this case, we have dual standards.

Adam Hamilton then took the floor, presenting a substitute amendment (paragraph 161f in the Book of Discipline), below:

***
Proposed Amendment by Substitution for
Calendar Item 513 (DCA page number 2367),
Petition Number 21032 (ADCA page number 270)


The following amendment would replace the proposed amendment contained in the original petition:

Homosexuality continues to divide our society and the church. All in the United Methodist Church affirm
that homosexual persons are people of sacred worth and are welcome in our churches, but we disagree as a people regarding whether homosexual practice is contrary to the will of God.

The Bible is our primary text for discerning God's will. We read and interpret it by the light of the Spirit's
witness, with the help of the thoughtful reflections of Christians through the centuries, and assisted by our
understanding of history, culture and science.
The majority view through the history of the church is that the scriptures teach that same-sex sexual intimacy is contrary to the will of God. This view is rooted in several passages from both the Old and New Testament.

A significant minority of our church views the scriptures that speak to same-sex intimacy as reflecting
the understanding, values, historical circumstances and sexual ethics of the period in which the scriptures were written, and therefore believe these passages do not reflect the timeless will of God. They read the scriptures related to same-sex intimacy in the same way that they read the Bible's passages on polygamy, concubinage, slavery and the role of women in the church.

United Methodists will continue to struggle with this issue in the years ahead as a growing number of young adults identify with what is today the minority view. The majority view of the General Conference, and thus the official position of the church, continues to hold that same-sex intimacy is not God's will. We recognize, however, that many faithful United Methodists disagree with this view.

It is likely that this issue will continue to be a source of conflict within the church. We have a choice:
We can divide, or we can commit to disagree with compassion, grace, and love, while continuing to seek to understand the concerns of the other. Given these options, schism or respectful co-existence, we choose
the latter.

We commit to disagree with respect and love, we commit to love all persons and, above all, we pledge to seek God’s will. With regard to homosexuality, as with so many other issues, United Methodists adopt the attitude of John Wesley who once said, "Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may."


Submitted by Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter
***
Currently, speeches are being heard for and against "substituting this amendment." However, I''m not sure that's exactly what the speeches are focusing on.

As I've asked before, I ask for prayers for our church. There is a lot of pain around this issue.

On to the Book of Resolutions....

One little-known fact about the United Methodist Church is that we have a publication which is updated every four years called The Book of Resolutions. It's not a little book - it's a significant tome, filled with resolutions on social issues.

In truth, as a United Methodist minister, I have found that when I introduce The Book of Resolutions in a Bible study or Sunday school, most of the people in the class tell me they had no idea that this book existed. They wonder if the resolutions are binding - do you have to agree to be a Methodist? You do not. Do clergy have to agree to maintain our credentials? We do not.

So why do we have this book? From the Book of Resolutions, pp. 24-26:

The resolutions say, "We care!" Delegates to the General Conference of The United Methodist Church believe that we each need and deserve the guidance of the whole denomination as we face daily hopes, struggles, joy, or pain. The resolutions and Social Principles express our Church community's beliefs and give us evidence that the Church means for God's love to reach into situations faced each day, not just on Sunday mornings. Not all of us are intimately involved with each issue, but someone, somewhere, is. 

So today, we began debating social issues that may or may not be included (or amended) in our Book of Resolutions. We're Methodists. It's what we do.

The first petition came from the Church and Society A Committee:

Petition 20138 (p. 222) calls for Opposition to Israeli Settlements in Palestinian Land. In the words of the Committee Chair, this petition advocates "an end of military occupation and full respect of human rights of all under international law."

This petition calls for certain actions to be taken by all nations, and all United Methodists in the U.S. The petition explicitly does not support a boycott of products made in Israel, but does oppose import of products made by Israeli companies operating in occupied Palestinian territories. It also recommends that all United Methodists read a Kairos Palestine document, written by Palestinian Christians, and "take up its call for nonviolent actions seeking an end to military occupation."

The C&S A committee overwhelmingly supported adoption of this petition: 50-14.

However, there was a sufficient number of people who disagreed with this decision to form a Minority Report (Calendar item 439). A proponent of the Minority Report stated, "We will not participate in any activity that isolates or demonizes the other." He went on to say that we must instead support moves that will help Israel & Palestine sit down and forge a political solution. Boycotts undermine these attempts for peace. Boycotting is punitive. We must return to the table and look for another solution. A positive investment approach is the better approach. Those who signed the minority report believe we must have clear language that leads to trust-building, and this language is missing in the Book of Resolutions.

After discussion on both sides, the motion to substitute the minority report was defeated: 45% for minority report/54% against minority report. Unfortunately, there was some concern that not all delegates understood what they were voting for. This may sound irresponsible, but I can assure you that these votes are not always easy to understand. Flipping between the ADCA and the DCA so you can review the petition, the amended petition, and the substitute petition while trying to keep up with the discussion on the floor requires a high degree of concentration. If you miss the bishop's voting instructions, you can become confused as to what a "yes" vote means. Still, the instructions were clearly given and the vote was taken. The complaint that was lifted after the vote was ruled out of order.

So we went on to debate the original petition.

Speeches for:

Church & Society A
committee member shows
map of how possession of land
has shifted over the years.

• Financial statistics from the U.S. State Department reveal that far, far more money is spent on military support of Israel than of Palestine.

• We have a long-standing tradition in our church. We stand with the marginalized people. This act of divestment is an act in solidarity with those who are suffering.

• We must accompany our words with actions. One way we can do this is through divestment. This is a moral and nonviolent action. We have seen the results of divestment in making changes against apartheid in S. Africa. This goes back to our Methodist tradition: there is no holiness but social holiness; there is no religion but social religion. We cannot use our resources to enhance the suffering of other people. [note: It was pointed out in another speech that divestment is not called for in this petition. This petition does call for a boycott, which is different.]

Speeches against:

• A speech against says that the church should not be involved in politics. The Prince of Peace will bring peace to the land - this is not our job. 

• This is not a simple issue - this is an extremely complex, regional issue. If we support this petition, we are only adding fuel to the fire - we are not hitting the issue here, at all.

• We have a method in our Book of Resolutions for establishing boycotts. We are not following this method. (This was proposed as a point of order, but was counted as a speech against, since it does not question the Rules of General Conference.)

We heard wrap-up comments from the Church & Society A committee: This petition is simply our willingness to cry with our brothers and sisters in Palestine. We cannot solve this problem, but we can share in their grief.

And then we voted: the body voted to support the petition and encourage countries and Methodists to accompany our words with actions.

Clearly, not all agree with this decision. This is not a new phenomenon! But it will be stated, as the committee recommended, in our Book of Resolutions. And the Resolutions will continue to be instructive, but not binding.

Many have questioned why we have this book. Certainly, debating issues such as these can take a lot of time on the floor. But I, for one, am glad to be a part of a denomination that cares enough to recognize and debate these issues. I am glad that United Methodists stand with a long line of People called Methodists who are willing to raise our concerns about social issues, engage in debate, and speak our mind about how we understand responsible Christian living.

Note: This issue was followed on the floor by an extremely emotional debate about divestment. I wish I could give details on all our deliberations; but I have to admit my limitations. I hope this post gives you some idea of the process, the issues, and the arguments that are put forth as we debate social issues at General Conference.

Plan UMC is on the Floor

A picture of the committee that will debate Plan UMC on the floor.

So...here's a play-by-play of Plan UMC's "fifteen minutes of fame" (ha!):
Andy Langford, a clergy delegate from North Carolina and one of the authors of Plan UMC, offered Plan UMC as a substitute petition to the IOT plan that did not pass in committee last week. He offered to make a presentation about Plan B if the body would agree to accept it as a substitution.

This was greatly debated, but eventually Plan UMC took the place as the main petition for our consideration. We all knew the IOT plan, Plan B, and MFSA plan were all dead, but this is still a big deal. A lot of time and energy was put into the plans that did not make it to the floor.

Lay Delegate Ricky Harrison (North Texas) takes the floor to urge
General Conference delegates to move ahead with allowing Plan UMC
to be presented on the floor.

After Plan UMC took the floor, there was an immediate request to refer it to a committee. This is short-hand for "We won't make any decision about this for four more years." This might sound wimpy; however, there are some valid points to be made. This document has only been available to us for 24 hours. It was only available in print in the English language (although other languages are available on the website.) There is concern about making hasty, uninformed petitions.

On the other hand, we haven't even heard a presentation about this proposal yet. Seems to me that we should do this before we simply refer....

There is also a lot of concern about who wrote this proposal. The names are printed, but who are these people? What color are they? How old are they? What country are they from? What special interest groups do they affiliate with? The presiding bishop, Bishop Watson, waffled a bit on having the members of the group visually identified, but it was finally ruled out of order.

So, 30 minutes later, Plan UMC will be presented and debated...following a much-needed break!

*****

Bishop Watson gratefully and joyfully conceded the floor to Bishop Huie before the break. She began her session by quoting from John Wesley's sermon on sanctification, that we might remember that we ourselves are being sanctified, and, by the grace of God, we are seeking the mind of Christ.

Debbie McCloud of the GA Conference moved to allow a 10 minute presentation on Plan UMC, and the motion (miraculously) passed!

Main Points of the Presentation:

This was taken from the gc2012.umc.org website.
I hope it's accurate!

• We've heard the plea for a sensible plan that unites us all
• This plan will move us forward with vision and hope, in light of the Call to Action report
• Focus on vital congregations that impact their communities
• Support new connectional opportunities in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Philippines, and the U.S.
• Encourages Annual Conferences to be nimble and adaptive
• Aligns general program agencies
• Keeps ultimate accountability and authority with General Conference

• Top Authority (under General Conference) is General Council for Strategy & Oversight
• Comprised of 45 members - replaces Connectional Table
• Includes the five racial-ethnic caucuses
• Leadership provided by Executive General Secretary
• Coordinate mission, ministries, and resources
• Amenable and accountable to General Conference
• Elects its own officers
• Provides church-wide shared services housed in the most effective locations

• Reporting to the General Council for Strategy & Oversight
• Committee on Inclusiveness
• GCORR and COSROW will be combined to make up Committee on Inclusiveness
• Program Agencies
• General Board of Church & Society
• General Board of Discipleship
• General Board of Global Ministries
• General Board of Higher Education and Ministry
• Each board will nominate their own General Secretary, to be elected by the GC, for Strategy & Oversight
• Each retains assets
• Maintain distributed liability
• Amenable and accountable to General Conference
• National Plans (5)
• Continue ministry among racial/ethnic persons
• Independent
• General Council on Finance & Administration
• United Methodist Communications
• General Board of Pension & Health Benefits
• United Methodist Publishing House
• United Methodist Men
• United Methodist Women
• Proposed 312 total directors (down from 634 members)

Okay.

First proposed amendment to the plan is to not have COSROW (Committee on Status & Role of Women) and GCORR (General Commission on Religion & Race) combined in one committee reporting directly to the GCSO (General Council for Strategy & Oversight). Arguments include: 1) issues of race and issues of gender are sufficiently distinct to require two separate boards, and 2) these groups would not be able to monitor the GCSO if they report to the GCSO. General Secretaries of COSROW and GCORR responded by saying that they did not feel it was good to combine these two; however, they do have a plan to move in that direction if that is the discerned will of the body.

And, after much debate, and (inevitably, it seems) an amendment to the amendment, the amendment fails by a very narrow margin (459/493).

Speakers addressed grave concerns about underrepresentation
of marginalized groups in the creation of Plan UMC and the
implication of this plan on marginalized groups in our
denomination.

Second proposed amendment to Plan UMC comes from Liberian delegate who proposes increases in the size of boards as proposed in this plan. This would allow more representation from the Central Conferences. A representative of the authors of the plan agrees. Naturally, an amendment to the amendment was proposed. I honestly got lost in a sea of United Methodist acronyms as the young man who was making the proposal glibly named our beloved boards and agencies: GBCS, GBOD, GBGM, GBHEM, GBOPHB, UMPH, UMM....and the proposed number of members on each board.

Truly, it's a bit challenging to make an informed decision. You'd have to be up-to-speed on each of these boards and agencies and the implications of changing the representation on each. We knew it would be challenging for a committee of 988 to make these kinds of decisions. And we were right.

It does appear that we are trying to maintain the current proportions of Central Conference membership on our boards: 30%. 

It also appears to me that if this amendment does not pass, the Plan itself will never pass. With 41% international representation, General Conference is unlikely to approve a plan that does not offer strong representation from the Central Conferences.

And the amendment passes (64%).

A clergywoman speaks about the difficulty of being
both female and Korean, arguing that it is essential to
keep COSROW & GCORR separate.

This allows the floor to open up for a speech (not the first) about why we should not even be discussing this when there has not been enough time for everyone to study the material properly. A question is also asked requesting clarification on how much money this plan will save and what we will do with the money we save. There appears to be no firm answer to this, as GCFA (General Council of Finance & Administration) has not yet analyzed the Plan.

And we have another proposal to amend the Plan. As written, the Plan names the following representation from each U.S. Jurisdiction for the General Council for Strategy and Oversight: North Central (3), Northeastern (3), South Central (5), Southeastern (8), Western (1). The proposed amendment would equalize representation so all jurisdictions have 3 members. And the amendment fails.

So...a request has been made to Call the Question. This means that we vote on whether or not we want to vote on Plan UMC.  Vote is taken, and it passes. This puts us in a position to vote Plan UMC up or down.

But wait! There is a point of order question. Can we vote before the Plan has gone to GCF&A? Yes, we can. But after we vote, it will have to go to GCF&A. It will then have to come back to the floor in the form of the GCF&A report. So...we can approve it now, but we could kill it later when the budget comes before us.

Still with me? Let's vote.

And the petition passes: 566/384 (60%/40%)

Who Saw That Coming?

Wow. Who saw that coming? This morning, almost without noticing it, the General Conference voted to do away with "guaranteed appointments" for clergy. No discussion, no concerns raised, no arguments, no amendments, no rebuttals, nothing. We just voted away the rights of Elders in Full Connection to receive a full-time appointment.

How did that happen?

Well, it should come as no surprise that parliamentary procedure had a lot to do with it.

For some background on this issue, let me attempt to summarize what was at stake here. Ordained elders in full connection currently serve "at the pleasure of the bishop." This means that we agree to go where we are sent and to use our gifts in ministry in whatever setting the bishop and cabinet choose for us. In Methodist-speak, this is known as itinerancy.

Molly Simpson Nason and Jeannie Trevino-Teddlie

While this does create a considerable amount of uncertainty for itinerant elders (housing, salary, geographic location and ministry setting can change for you and your family very suddenly, and without your input), one thing that counter-balances this uncertainty is a line in the Book of Discipline that says, "All elders in full connection who are in good standing in an annual conference shall be continued under appointment by the bishop....." In short, we have a guaranteed appointment. If you are an elder in good standing, the cabinet has to find a place for you.

But this will now change. For some time, there has been a growing awareness that our current system is not supportable. Bishops and cabinets regularly scramble to fill all the pulpits. In some conferences, there is a clergy shortage. In others, there are more elders than there are pulpits. In addition to this challenge, Bishops and cabinets occasionally find themselves at a loss to know what to do with a clergyperson who is not deemed effective. A pastor who has a pattern of ineffectiveness, but is otherwise in good standing, must be given an appointment. In practical experience, this sometimes hurts our connection, it hurts our churches, and it hurts our witness to the world. It also doesn't allow an opportunity to acknowledge that there may come a time when a clergyperson is called to exit the ministry gracefully.

Okay. So, there are some arguments "for" doing away with guaranteed appointments. But what about the flip side? What if  you are a 57 year old woman who has served three churches in a row that are not willing to accept a woman in the pulpit? What happens if you are thus deemed ineffective? Without a guaranteed appointment, you could be put on leave - with no pulpit, no salary, no benefits - "at the pleasure of the bishop." What if you are a Korean-American pastor with an Korean accent who just doesn't seem to "fit" in the churches in your conference? Could you find yourself without an appointment, even though you have great gifts for fruitful ministry? What if you have a strong theological/social stance that is contrary to the one held by your bishop or district superintendent? Could you be told, "We just don't have room for you?"

Clearly, there are strong arguments for and against guaranteed appointments. You'd pretty much expect that some of these issues would be raised on the floor of Conference, wouldn't you?

Here I am, working with Gary Mueller
and other delegates to"perfect" the
Mueller Amendment in sub-sub-committee.

As a member of the Ministry & Higher Education committee and the sub-committee on the Ministry Study recommendations, I can at least report on what happened before the petition came to the floor this morning. When the original petition, which was presented by a Study of Ministry Commission that has been working on this and similar issues for the past four years (as sanctioned by the 2008 General Conference), came to the sub-committee, there was not a lot of initial discussion about the issue.


To get the ball rolling, Rev. Gary Mueller of North Texas presented an amendment to the petition that would create some framework for the bishop and cabinet to be held accountable to the annual conference, the conference Board of Ordained Ministry and the episcopal committee of the jurisdiction. Specific metrics are built into the amendment to require the Bishop to report to the BOM and the episcopal committee who does not receive an appointment and why, plus statistics of age, ethnicity and gender for those who did not receive appointments. This amendment was discussed, debated and "perfected" in the sub-committee (and, again, a sub-sub committee). The sub-committee then passed the petition, as amended.

And here's our work in progress....

On Saturday, the amended petition came before the Ministry & Higher Education committee. The petition was presented, and the committee asked some clarifying questions about the amendment. Oddly, there was very little discussion and debate. People seemed ready to vote. We did - and the amended petition passed: 68-7, with 8 abstaining (and before you judge those who abstained too harshly, please know that we had a number of international delegates in the committee. This petition does not apply to their process of ordination, and some did not truly seem to understand our system, with or without the petition. Possibly, these delegates chose not to vote.)

Since fewer than 10 votes were cast against this petition, the petition was placed in the consent calendar, along with many other petitions that qualified for the consent calendar. 

As you might guess, a petition that goes on the consent calendar can be lifted off the consent calendar. All it takes are 20 signatures of voting delegates. It appears that these signatures were sought and a request was made to lift this petition off the consent calendar for discussion by the body on the floor of General Conference.

So - this morning, when we received our Daily Christian Advocate, one of our first orders of business was to vote on the consent calendar, in its entirety. We were told that a small number of petitions would be taken off the calendar, and we were given those numbers. We were also told that two petitions would not be taken off the consent calendar, because only 19 signatures were submitted (apparently 20 lines were filled out, but one person signed twice). Amazingly, one of these petitions was the one dealing with security of appointment.

And so...we voted. We voted to approve, wholesale, all of the petitions (with the exception of the few that had been properly taken off the consent calendar) on the consent calendar (about 14 pages of closely-written text). We felt pretty good about it, actually. After the frustrating day we had yesterday, it was nice to take care of business in such an expedient way.

It was close to two hours later when Rev. We Hyun Chang of Belmont, MA came to the microphone and brought this action to the attention of the body. There was a flutter of concern, a request to reconsider this item, a few impassioned speeches and a clear desire from many to have the opportunity to discuss this monumental shift in our polity. And then, we voted. And the vote did not pass (564-373). Not enough people wanted to reconsider this item, and so the original vote stands. And guaranteed appointments fall.

I spoke with Gary Mueller shortly after the vote. We both could not believe that there would be no discussion on the floor on this issue. (Especially considering the amount of time we give to issues of far less import for our ordained clergy.) Gary said he never intended for the petition to receive no discussion, and we are both concerned about the negative feelings from a body that feels that they had no voice in this decision. But there you are. We finally made a decision to change something. We did it with very little discussion.

I pray that the decision was the right one.

Plan UMC

Today we were presented with Plan UMC, a new plan for restructuring that was crafted between 9:30 Saturday night and 3:00 p.m. Monday. It's 79 pages long, and we'll start discussing it tomorrow.

As always, prayers are appreciated!

If you'd like to read the plan, you can get all the information here.

Lord, We Need Your Help

Today, our District Superintendent Ginger Bassford presented at a lunch for authors of the Adaptive Leadership Series published by Abingdon Press. Her book is called, Lord, I love the Church and We Need Help. It seems an apt title to describe my feelings after our first day of plenary.

The work of General Conference is, as I've mentioned, messy. (My friend Clay Andrew compares crafting legislation to sausage-making here.) Petitions are earnestly written, often after years of discussion, debate and despair. Every four years, our Book of Discipline "opens up" for change. And individuals, churches, boards, agencies, seminary professors, clergy, laity, students and others submit their petitions in hopes that the church will adopt a new way of being.

These petitions are far too unwieldy for the entire body of the General Conference to deal with. So they are assigned to committees. These bodies, too, are too large. So each committee is divided into sub-committees. These small groups each take a portion of the petitions and discern how they should be handled. (In my committee, Ministry & Higher Ed, this work was done in sub-sub-committees.) Some petitions are deemed "no brainers" for acceptance or rejection. A list is made. Others are a group of similar petitions that all deal with the same paragraph of the Discipline. These are considered together, and usually one is chosen in favor of the others, which are rejected. Perhaps pieces of the rejected petitions are amended into the surviving petition. Or perhaps a substitute petition is offered in favor of the others. Other petitions are referred to a different committee. And so it goes. As I've said, it's tedious work. Since our first level of scrutiny occurred at the sub-sub level, we then met as a sub-committee to present and approve/reject our petitions.

After the sub-committees have vetted the petitions, the committee meets as a plenary group to review the petitions. The sub-committee chair presents the ones that were recommended for approval. If these receive unanimous approval of the committee, they are immediately sent to the consent calendar for consideration by the plenary on the floor of Conference. If the petition is approved, but the vote is not unanimous, the petition goes in a different section of the Daily Christian Advocate for consideration on the floor. It is noted how many voted for and against the petition.

If a petition is rejected, this is also noted in the DCA (with the number of votes). And if the committee ran out of time before they could consider the petition (even if it had been considered by the sub-sub and sub-committees) - well, it just dies. It is noted on the DCA that the petition was not reviewed and no action is taken.

From here, a number of things can happen. If a petition is voted down or does not make it out of committee, you can resurrect it on the floor of Conference if you get 20 voting delegates to sign a petition requesting that the petition come to the floor. We've seen a bit of that today.

If the committee makes a decision for or against a petition and you are on the committee and you voted the opposite direction from the committee's decision, you can file a minority report. This requires fewer signatures, and I believe they all have to be from members of the committee who also voted in the opposite direction.

CTC Delegates Ed Komandosky (lay), Carolyn Stephens (lay),
Kim Simpson (lay) and Debra Crumpton (clergy)
participate in Holy Conferencing to discuss
the future of our denomination.

Exhausted yet? We haven't even made it to plenary!

Until today.

Today, on the floor of Conference, we went through the grueling process described in my previous post. We spent precious minutes debating and deliberating petitions that have already made it through at least two levels of legislative bodies (in the case of my committee, three levels). It can be disheartening work. At best, we work to perfect a petition that needs some tweaking. At worst, we argue and debate and try to spin our speeches to get our way.

We had a lot of "worst" moments on the floor today. I'm far too tired to try to relate them all here, but I will ask for your prayers.

Remember the Call to Action Report? How about Plan B? Both of these (plus a third plan proposed by the Methodist Federation for Social Action - MFSA) could not gain enough support to make it out of the General Administration committee. Our Rules (remember The Rules?) require us to end our work at 9:30 p.m. each night, so debating into the wee hours is not an option. And so, in a difficult and dramatic evening Saturday night, all plans for restructuring our church came off the table - none made it out of committee.

So Sunday was spent by some regrouping and coming up with a plan that can (hopefully) pass. Only this time, it won't be one committee hashing it out - it will be all 988 of us. And, if today is any indication, it won't be pretty.

The new plan that is getting a lot of buzz is "Plan UMC." I have no idea what it holds, but I pray we can see a way through. (I am encouraged by the leadership of Rev. Don Underwood of the North Texas Conference, so am hopeful that this plan will work.)

The truth is, the UMC must change if we are to continue to be an effective, missional denomination. And we want to be an effective, missional denomination. My attention has been so taken up with Ministry & Higher Education matters that I really can't say what this new plan should hold. But I know we need one.

A highlight of the day was a performance by
the Africa University Choir. Amen!

And I know that we do not seem to be a very united church as we vote on the floor. Clear divisions based on fierce protection of doctrinal standards (that cannot simply be reduced to debates over homosexuality) and - dare I say - distrust and fear are causing delegates to draw lines in the sand.

In some subcommittees, it was evident that some of our Central Conference (international) delegates were taking their cues from other (U.S.) delegates in the room. There seems little doubt that there is a lot of politicking going on. And I'm not sure that the will that is sought in all of this is truly God's will.

We may discuss Plan UMC tomorrow. Or we might spend another day getting caught up in the minutiae of debating, amending and trying to reject too few petitions that have already passed committee.

We only have four days left. And then it's over. The Discipline will "close" and we'll live for another four years with the decisions that have been made. We will also have to live without whatever decisions are left on the floor.

Lord, I love the church and we need help. I invite and encourage your prayers for the UMC. We have a vital mission, we have a heart for mission and social justice and a voice that needs to be heard in this world today. Lives are changed and saved, in every sense, through the ministries of this denomination. I pray we will find a way to move forward.

May God's will be done

A Word About Voting

Voting: it's the meat of what gets done at General Conference. All the work of the petition writers, the sub-committees, and the committees is done so that the plenary of voting delegates on the floor can vote on the petitions and thus change (or not change) the official position and rules of the United Methodist Church.

Pretty important stuff, right?

Now take into consideration the reality that 988 voting delegates are sitting at round tables, spread out on the floor of the Tampa Bay Convention Center. The Presiding Bishop sits at one end of the room and has the task of recognizing the people who wish to speak at a microphone. Let me also mention that the lighting in this room is poor at best. This should help you understand that getting the Bishop's attention on the floor is extremely difficult - especially if you are at the back of the room.

Each voting delegate is given three pieces of paper to use to get the Bishop's attention. Green means you want to speak "for" something. Orange means you want to speak "against" something. White means you have a question. Your job, as a person anxious to speak, is to sit at your seat and wave your paper wildly until the Bishop recognizes you. Once recognized, you go to a microphone, where you are allowed to speak for no more than 3 minutes (a big traffic light in at the front helps keep time - if you are close enough to see it).

A delegate holds up his green card to speak "for" an action.

If you are standing at the microphone, you must remember to speak slowly and clearly, so the translators (remember the 41% international delegates?) can do their job. If you don't speak slowly and clearly, you might be asked to start over at the beginning and repeat your speech. This requires a lot of patience for the body.

Now, Robert's Rules rule the day here at General Conference. So voting (while parliamentarily correct) is rarely straightforward. Typically, a petition is offered, and an amendment is made. The amendment is then open for debate. Speeches are limited to two speeches for, two speeches against. Questions don't count as speeches (although, make no mistake, they usually are!). Sometimes (read: often), an amendment to the amendment is proposed. When this happens, we start again with "two for, two against." And so on, and so on, and so on. Eventually, we either get back to the original petition or we vote on the amended petition (sometimes after it has been amended numerous times).

It's a messy process, to be sure. It's easy to be critical of it, it's easy to get impatient with it, and it's easy to say that we're losing our spiritual focus as we get mired in parliamentary (and political) details. But we are a global church. To have only 988 delegates representing the UMC at this time is pretty spartan, as it is. And to hope to find agreement among so many people...well, it's messy, but it gets the job done.

I just hope we're getting it done according to God's will for the UMC. Prayers are appreciated and necessary. Thank you!

Go, Tim!

Our own Tim Bruster, Senior Pastor of FUMC Fort Worth, has been nominated by the Council of Bishops for the Judicial Council of the UMC.  This is a very big honor, and our entire delegation strongly supports Tim's election.

We're going to vote on these nominations soon. There are nine clergy on the ballot, and we will choose two.

However, before we can do this, we have to be sure that we all understand how to use the voting machine. This is not going well. We are on Round Three of voting for our Favorite Apostle. I like Thomas and Simon. I hope they win!

***

Oops! On Round Five of testing the voting machines, I am required to vote for Peter. I feel coerced.

***

Peter wins! We can get on with real voting.

***

We have an election! Two Lay Members are chosen: Oswald Tweh and Beth Capen.

***

Setback - Alternate Lay Delegate vote in question. Much math confusion....

***

J Kabamba Kiboko and Dennis L. Blackwell are voted in as Clergy Members. This is disappointing to me, because I wasn't voting for them, and I don't know anything about them. Ah, well. On to alternate clergy members....

***

Yay! Tim Bruster receives 94% of the votes as first alternate clergy member for Judicial Council!

And the Votes are Taken...

...and the vote fails.

Set-Aside Bishop

Here I am, hard at work on the floor of General Conference!
Laptop: check; ipad: check; iPhone: check

Big discussion happening on the floor right now about whether or not we will decide to have a "set-aside" Bishop in our Council of Bishops. This would mean that the President of the Council of Bishops would not have an episcopal jurisdiction. Currently, our Council of Bishops has a President who also serves as the Bishop of a particular conference. As President, this Bishop has additional responsibilities that take up about 25% of their time. If this petition passes, we will approve a Bishop who will be "set-aside" to do the  administrative work of the Council of Bishops. However, this will require a change to our Constitution, which means that it will have to be approved by 2/3 of the Annual Conferences. Therefore, if we vote to do this, it will not be official unless the Annual Conferences approve it this summer. (whew!)

An amendment to the petition was made that suggested that we create a study committee to study this possibility for the next four years and vote on it in 2016. Bishop Goodpaster, our most recent President, reminded us that 1968 General Conference did approve this action, but it was not retained when the merger was completed that created the United Methodist Church. It has been studied numerous times since. The amendment failed.

A new amendment was made for the Council of Bishops to create a committee to nominate a set-aside Bishop. This nominee would be elected by the body of General Conference every four years. One of the concerns about the current petition is that the Council of Bishops is given authority to decide who this President will be. This does not maintain the 50% lay/50% clergy balance that we usually require. In answer to this is the argument that clergy and laity elect the Bishops at the Jurisdictional level: if a set-aside Bishop is elected from the floor of General Conference, this Bishop will have greater authority than the other Bishops. It is not the intent of this petition to create a Bishop who has more authority, but one that can dedicate themselves to the administrative work of the episcopacy and help the Council do their work without sacrificing the quality of work they are able to do in their home conference. The amendment failed.

We're headed for recess. I'll keep you posted!

Getting Started With Committees

American delegates tend to wear travel-friendly black.
International delegates, who travelled much farther,
do not seem to ever wear black.

Committee work at General Conference is a fascinating, tedious and inconsistent task. Shortly after our election to General Conference last June, our delegation met via conference call to choose the committees that we would follow. There are 13 committees and 12 delegates, so our conference is not represented with a voice in one of the Church and Society committees. (Fortunately, we have Laura Whitley here as an alternate delegate to cover the proceedings of this committee. She can sit in, watch, take notes, etc. But she has no voice and no vote.) Our alternate delegates each chose a committee to "shadow," so our delegation could learn as much as possible about the proposed legislation.


 My committee is Ministry & Higher Ed. We handle issues related to ordination & appointment of clergy, some issues of clergy conduct, and issues related to our institutions of higher education (included Ministry Education Funds, which is one of our apportioned items.) I think our committee has the most petitions to consider, and we have been working hard to get through them all.

Lunch break with the delegation. We ran into a Bishop.
Can you spot the Bishop?

On our first day of committees, we met as a full group, with a Bishop presiding, to elect a chair, vice-chair, secretary and three sub-chairs. Elections went very smoothly. Bishop Marcus Matthews took nominations from the floor, then had all nominees come to the microphone for no more than one minute to share their name, clergy/lay status, conference and which Bible leader they identified with. Brilliant. I understand other committees' nominees were given time to talk about why they wanted to do this/why they should be chosen. I personally liked our method better - less focus on the leader and more focus on staying rooted in why we are here.

Elections go very fast. In very little time, we had elected David Bard as Chair, which has proven to be an excellent choice. The chair of the sub-committee I am working with is Rev. Amy Gearhart and this was also a very good choice. So far, so good.

We did take time to introduce ourselves as a whole group, which took a fair amount of time (there are over 80 people on the committee). It was good to get an idea of where everyone is from, to begin to learn something about our international delegates, and to start putting faces to names. It's such a huge process, but you have to start somewhere.

An infograph showing something like
how committees work & relate to the whole.
I haven't seen anything like this illustrating
our United Methodist procedure.
Maybe I'll get on this after I get home.

I was told before this began that the selection of the Chair and Sub-Chairs is critical, and I see that this is true. You have to have people who understand parliamentary procedure and who know how to keep things moving forward. They also have to ensure that we are letting all voices be heard and not allowing two or three people to debate the issues. When in danger of getting mired in details, the sub-chair has to know when to table something or move it to a smaller committee. I have heard from some of our other delegates that these gifts are not present in their sub-chairs, and their committee process has been painful.

I see many signs of positive affirmation
of the church's need
to recognize gifts of young people.

Some sub-chairs are fairly young and fairly inexperienced. This is not necessarily a problem, and it is in fact encouraged for young people to take leadership roles (in some committees). I was certainly encouraged as a first-time delegate to put my name forward for leadership (I did not, however, as I wanted to give my attention more to the issues than to the procedure). However, if a sub-committee chair is inexperienced and (dare I say) clueless, this can cause a train wreck. I am extremely thankful that we have such a competent leader in Amy Gearhart.

The future's so bright, she's got to wear shades.
Rev. Brenda Wier is sporting lovely pink
GC Commemorative sunglasses
from Cokesbury ($3.99!)

Our first order of business following elections was to divide into three sub-committees: one for higher ed. concerns, one for Study of Ministry concerns, and one for all other concerns. I chose the Ministry Study group, and was glad that we were able to self-select. Our sub-committee then divided into three sub-sub-committees and divided the petitions (we have well over 100 to consider in our sub-committee). Our sub-committee met to quickly vet the petitions and put them in different categories: those we had consensus on, those we thought the whole group should debate, those we wanted to reject, and those whose language was simply dependent on other legislation passing (i.e. If we do away with commissioning, petitions related to striking the word "commissioning" would pass; if we don't, they won't)

Again, this was a very positive experience. It's early in the process, but so far, this seems a pretty civilized way of going about the work of the church.