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!