Reaction to GC2008: South Central Jurisdiction

[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.

We start this series with a look at the reaction of Annual Conferences within the South Central Jurisdiction.

In the South Central Jurisdiction, the sole response was from the Central Texas Annual Conference, and a strong response it is. They challenged the applicability of Judicial Council Decision #1032 in the resolution entitled “RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO JUDICIAL COUNCIL DECISION #1032″ ¹:

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. ⇧

---