Asterisk

[Note: Part three in a series of six. Links to parts 1-2 and 4-6 at bottom of this post as they are published.]

Northeastern Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church

Small But Mighty

Resolution for Continuing Dialogue on
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

WHEREAS, the United Methodist Church continues to struggle with issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity; and

WHEREAS, the Report of the Task Force on Homosexuality and the Unity of the Church adopted by the 2004 General Conference encouraged further dialogue throughout the United Methodist Church, designed to lead to greater understanding, love and care for each other; and

WHEREAS, the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference determined in 2006 that this Conference will model inclusive behavior by expecting and encouraging its congregations and clergy to abide by the principle: Membership in any local church in the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference shall not be denied on the basis of race, color, national origin, economic condition, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, ability or disability, or any other status; and

WHEREAS, the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference has demonstrated wisdom and leadership in facing the challenge of contending views regarding sexual orientation and gender identity during the 2005-2008 quadrennium by initiating a dialogue team at the Conference level and by beginning the process of forming district level dialogues, which allow Conference members to talk with and not just about Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) persons; and

WHEREAS, through prayerful dialogue these teams created open, grace-filled spaces for persons with contending viewpoints to learn to know each other authentically, to explore divergent understandings and whenever possible, to experience healing and reconciliation; and WHEREAS, the Conference was not able to initiate dialogue teams in each of the Districts of the Baltimore-Washington Conference during the 2005 – 2008 quadrennium; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate not only to complete the task of the dialogue teams but also to advance congregational insight and wisdom in dealing with LGBT issues as they pursue the Discipleship Adventure:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the bishop and each district superintendent shall continue to facilitate the organization of dialogue teams within each District of the Baltimore- Washington Conference on issues related to the full inclusion of LGBT persons in the life of The United Methodist Church, Conference organizations and each local church; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that each District dialogue team shall include LGBT persons and that care shall be taken to ensure that LGBT persons who participate in these dialogues shall not be subject to adverse actions; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that funding required for the work of the District Dialogue Teams shall continue to come from the Baltimore-Washington Conference, as is consistent with Judicial Council rulings; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that each district superintendent shall report quarterly to the bishop regarding the formation or lack thereof of a dialogue team in his or her district and that the bishop and Cabinet work together to ensure that each district has a functioning dialogue team by Annual Conference 2009; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that each district dialogue team shall continue this important work during the entirety of the next quadrennium (2009 – 2012), and shall report quarterly to the bishop and the Cabinet on their progress and activities, and further that each district dialogue team shall, through 2012, report annually to the Annual Conference on the status of their work, including lessons learned, hopes and plans for continued dialogue, and recommendations for how to move into the future; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such reports of each district dialogue team and each district superintendent shall be published annually in the Conference Journal through 2012.

I congratulate leaders in the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference for their continuing work for the cause. Leaders involved with this resolution include Bishop John R. Schol and members of B-WARM, the local chapter of Reconciling Ministries. Named on the Conference’s official documents are Adam Briddell (current chair of B-WARM), Carol Berman, Ella Curry, the Rev. Peter DeGroote, Ron Gebhardtsbauer, Paul Hazen, Jen Ihlo, Kara Ker, T.C. Morrow, the Rev. Drew Phoenix, Dr. Mittie Quinn, and Ralph Williams.

Note: In mid-July, delegates from the Northeast Jurisdiction passed a resolution supporting the clergy in the California-Pacific and California-Nevada Conferences. For more information regarding the actions of these clergypersons, see the post detailing the resolutions of the Western Jurisdiction.

[Note: Part two in a series of six. Links to parts 1 and 3-6 at bottom of this post as they are published.]

North Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church

In this second post looking at official reactions to General Conference 2008, we’ll be looking at the North Central Jurisdiction., where two Annual Conferences approved official reactions to Fort Worth.

Land of Lincoln

First up is Northern Illinois, led by Bishop Hee-Soo Jung. Their resolution was called “Witness to Conscience”, and was reported by the June 20, 2008 edition of their newsletter (pdf), page three (closest I could find to the actual text):

… “Witness to Conscience” focuses on the emotional issue of inclusiveness and human sexuality. The petition responds to recent actions of the 2008 General Conference and UM Judicial Council on these topics. “Witness to Conscience” is a multi-part petition that focuses on lack of inclusive language in the United Methodist Book of Discipline ¶ 161.G, calling on the Northern Illinois Annual Conference to consider presenting an alternative paragraph at the 2009 Annual Conference. It also denounces the ruling of the UM Judicial Council that refused to consider resolutions entitled “Affirming All Families” adopted by the 2007 Northern Illinois Annual Conference (The Judicial Council refused to rule because the petitions passed on the consent calendar without debate). Finally, this petition tries to re-consider the merits of the majority report coming out of the Church and Society II Legislative Committee at the UM General Conference 2008. This “majority report” affirmed that the church is divided on the issue of homosexuality. The current petition noted this report to be a representation that is “an honest, gracious and fair statement of the present reality with the United Methodist Church and held great promise for the healing of our church.” Debate on this petition had to do primarily with people being encouraged to enter into more study on the politically divisive issue of human sexuality. In the end, alternative amendments calling for more education were defeated and the “witness to conscience” petition was adopted.

West Ohio rules! East Ohio drools!

Over in West Ohio Annual Conference, I had the honor of singing at Wednesday morning worship, and found the congregation of 3,000 to be warm, responsive, and engaged in the process. (If you ever have a chance to hear Pastor Rudy Rasmus speak, do it! He was wonderful.)

I found out after I’d gotten home that the resolutions regarding gays and the Church were voted on that afternoon. If I’d known, I could’ve snuck in to catch the vote.

As it is, I’m glad I didn’t. We had three petitions regarding the issue on the table. Two were quickly tabled in order to take more time discussing the third, a resolution calling for a concerted effort at better education and open discussion in anticipation of General Conference 2012. I have a link to the text of the approved resolution, but now that I want to use it, the West Ohio site is down. I’ll hope to be able to get that later, but for now, here’s an account from the Reconciling Ministries Network blogger Heather Murphy:

The recommendation asked congregations and individuals to refrain from judgment, to love one another, to study with open hearts and minds, and to make use of the materials the church has made available for study of the question. I’ll spoil the suspense and tell you that the recommendation passed, and while there were a significant number who voted against it, it passed with a clear majority. Those who spoke against it were passionately opposed, but their words were so filled with extremist rhetoric that they may have done more to help full inclusion than to prevent it. As I listened to one speaker explain how homosexuality is an abomination which will result in death at the hands of the God of wrath, a stranger behind me whispered, “I do believe it’s a sin, but that isn’t right, either.” I was especially thrilled to be called an ‘atrocity.’ I’ve been called an abomination many times before, as have we all, but I don’t think anyone has ever called me an atrocity before. I may add it to my resume.

Update: The West Ohio site is back, so as promised, here’s the approved substitute resolution #12 plus a pdf of the Conference resolutions (see page 45).

RECOMMENDATION #12
Read, Study and Learn

Whereas, for more than a generation (that is, since the 1972 Book of Discipline), United Methodists, along with other Christians, have struggled to find principles for applying traditional teachings to contemporary understandings of human sexuality.

Whereas, we know that all of God’s children are of sacred worth, and yet we have been, and remain, divided regarding homosexual expressions of human sexuality. We have disagreed about Scriptural teachings: some have contended that the specific injunctions of Leviticus and St. Paul have authority over even the more general love commands of Jesus, while others have contended that the complexity of human sexuality, as we see it today, was never envisioned in previous millennia, and therefore could not have been addressed specifically in the Bible.

Whereas, we have tried to reason together about all of this, and we have prayed together, but we have yet to know fully the promised peace of the Holy Spirit in our community of faith. The fire in our disagreements points to a deeper human mystery than we know. We believe that the Spirit has brought our collective conscience to acknowledge this mystery more honestly, and to make our claims with greater humility before God and our neighbors.

Therefore, we ask the West Ohio Annual Conference, its pastors, congregations, staff, and members,
1) to refrain from judgement regarding homosexual persons and practices as the Spirit continues to move among us,
2) to welcome, know, forgive, and love one another as Christ has accepted us, that God may be glorified through everything in our lives,
3) to study with open hearts and open minds the 1992 General Conference Report of the Committee to Study Homosexuality called The Church Studies Homosexuality (available through United Methodist Publishing House – Cokesbury) and the 2005 General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns DVD Can We Talk used by the West Ohio Annual Conference Unity Task Force in its “Can you hear me now?” dialogues in October of 2007, and
4) to call on the Inclusive Body of Christ (as outlined in the 2008 structure) to make available materials and resources authorized by the 2008 General Conference on heterosexism and homophobia at the 2009 West Ohio Annual Conference for use by pastors, congregations, staff, and members.

Kind of a mealy-mouthed response, right?

Truth is, we’re a pretty conservative conference and I was almost surprised to get this much passed. Next time, I suppose. One way or another, we’ll get there.

[Note: Part one in a series of six. Links to parts 2-6 at bottom of this post as they are published.]

It’s been three months since General Conference 2008, and I thought it would be interesting to see what official reaction came through the Annual Conferences. All conferences were held in May and June this year, so there was short but ample time for each conference to formulate and consider appropriate response to the ongoing discrimination against LGBT people.

South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church

In the HEART of Texas

WHEREAS, the Judicial Council Decision #1032 asserts that as part of his/her administrative responsibility (Section 304.3 (b)(1) of the Book of Discipline) a pastor is solely responsible for making the determination of a person’s readiness to receive the vows of membership, and

WHEREAS, the language affirming this assertion cannot be found in THE BOOK OF DISCIPLINE, and

WHEREAS, THE BOOK OF DISCIPLINE only gives the pastor “discretion” over the preparation of “younger people” who seek enrollment in preparation for profession of faith and confirmation (Section 216.3), and

WHEREAS, the Judicial Council’s Decision has grave implication for Methodism’s global connection and historical assumption of membership in the church universal (Article IV of the Constitution of the DISCIPLINE entitled “Inclusiveness of the Church”);

BE IT RESOLVED that the Central Texas Annual Conference request that the Judicial Council reconsider Decision #1032, and record in the Central Texas Annual Conference Minutes a vote of non support of Judicial Council Decision #1032, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such a vote of non support is intended to express a strong opposition to the stated conclusion of the Judicial Council decision and not intended to declare the Annual Conference intention to disobey the Decision.

But the Central Texas Annual Conference didn’t stop there. They passed a separate resolution vowing not to use the authority that Decision #1032 gives ministers. From the resolution entitled “RESOLUTION REGARDING INCLUSIVE LOCAL CHURCH MEMBERSHIP” ²:

WHEREAS: We believe the official position of the United Methodist Church regarding membership is contained in Division One, Article IV of the Constitution of the United Methodist Church, and

WHEREAS: We believe that Judicial Council Decision 1032 is inconsistent with Division One, Article IV of the Constitution of the United Methodist Church and that it is a departure from the historical direction of the United Methodist Church regarding membership;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Central Texas Annual Conference will model inclusive behavior by expecting and encouraging its congregations and clergy to abide by the principle: Membership in any local church in the Central Texas Annual Conference shall not be denied on the basis of race, color, national origin, economic condition, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, ability or disability.

It should be noted that Central Texas is the Annual Conference of Fort Worth, home to this year’s General Conference. Perhaps the local churches were trying to cleanse themselves of the General Conference’s sad legacy.

My thanks to Ben R. Chamness, retiring Bishop of the Central Texas Annual Conference for his leadership. Thanks also to members of the Conference’s Church and Society Committee, which submitted both resolutions. Members of this committee are: Julie Fuschak, Allene Booth-Judson, Anne Jordan, Marjorie Herbert, Fredda Minisk, Kathleen W. Landis, O.L. Davis, Eda Montgomery, Leslie Zalles, Jan K. Davis, Milton Jordan, Joe Montgomery, Zoe Wilson, Walt Herbert, Barbara Brightwell.

Thanks to you all.

¹ This resolution can be found on page 128 of this report (pdf), supplied by the Conference. ⇧
² Page 121. ⇧

Understanding the organizational structure of the United Methodist Church is key to some of the more technical aspects of the fight for equality within the church. It’s a bit confusing for some people who haven’t been immersed in it forever, but here we go! (Maps and some information taken from UMC.org.)

The top level of the UMC has three branches. The General Conference is a group of around 1,000 delegates who meet every four years to discuss and vote on various provisions, clarifications, and changes to the Book of Discipline. The Judicial Council is a nine-member group that decides the legality of actions taken by churches and Annual Conferences according to the Book of Discipline. The Council of Bishops includes all active or retired Bishops within the UMC. It’s kind of our answer to the three branches of American government, with the Book of Discipline standing in as our Constitution.

The second level is the general agencies. In the interest of not letting my fingers wear down to bloody stumps, let’s just say that any good Methodist never met a meeting he didn’t like, and those meetings need reasons to be held. So on the eighth day, according to the Book of Discipline, God created the General Agencies of the United Methodist Church, including the General Council on Finance and Administration, General Commission on Religion and Race, and the General Board of Church and Society. The General Agencies report to the General Conference.

Still with me? Kinda dry, I know, but it’s about to get good. ¹

US Jurisdictions of the UMC

Next we have the Jurisdictional and Central Conferences ². The United States is split into five jurisdictions, shown in the map above. They serve as a support for lower-tier bodies. Each Jurisdiction has its own conference every four years to elect General Conference delegates, elect and assign bishops, and to approve resolutions and such to be sent to the General Conference.

Now we get to the Annual Conferences. Each Annual Conference is a subdivision of its Jurisdictional Conference, made up of all active clergy and an equal number of delegates from all United Methodist churches within that Annual Conference, and is run by its presiding bishop.

As the name suggests, these Annual Conferences meet annually to look at work within the local churches, adopt budgets, ordain clergy members as deacons and elders, and elect delegates to Jurisdictional and General Conferences. ( My Annual Conference, for example, is the West Ohio Conference, shown below.) They can, and usually do, vote on resolutions to clarify that Annual Conference’s official stance on an issue or request structural changes within the Annual Conference.

West Ohio rules! East Ohio drools!

Then you have the further division into districts, and finally local congregations.

That’s a lot of organization, no? The goal, as far as I can tell, is to spread the authority over many people, both ordained and laypersons, so that no one person will have absolute power. One of the problems I’ve seen lately is that often the most active people in the local congregations aren’t aware of what’s going on outside their own district, let alone at General Conference. This much bureaucracy lends itself to a disconnect.

So there you have it. I’m hopeful that this page will become a regular reference as we delve into the issues at hand. Thoughts or corrections, please post a comment.

¹ Not really. ⇧
²This blog’s primary focus will be the UMC in the United States, so I won’t go into any further detail on the structure in other parts of the world. Terribly US-centric, I know. I shall hang my head in shame. ⇧