Well, I'm home from General Conference, and quite bummed about that fact. What in the world ever made me think I'd be okay with leaving in the middle and missing the end? As I told someone yesterday, to me, it's like going to a play and leaving at intermission, missing the second act. I want to know what's happening!
Okay...it was money, and attempting to be responsible, financially, to myself and those who have supported my trip there. As it turns out, I had pleanty of money and support to go, and by staying with Mark (therefore, not having to pay for a hotel room), I have lots of money left over!
Mark's company asked him to stay 2 more days, so he's coming home Thursday. I looked into changing my flight to stay, but it would have cost $200 to change it - about what I payed for the ticket in the first place! And I couldn't bring myself to pay that. I'll be donating the rest of the money given to me to UMCOR, probably Nothing But Nets.
So, I'm home. And now I get to follow the rest of General Conference like the rest of you, through the website and streaming sessions online. Good thing I met several bloggers there, and can now follow their blogs to keep updated!
Even though I'm home, and GC, for me at least, is over this year, I hope you will continue to check in here often to see what other updates I send out about my life. It's kind of boring, but my brain sure thinks about a lot of stuff!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Sweet, Sweet Spirit
This blog exemplifies to me one aspect of the spirit I feel here at General Conference. It also shows one example of the difficult decisions that are being made here. I encourage you to read it, then return here for my notes.
Yes, there are politics. Yes, there is arguing. Yes, there are still those so caught up in themselves that they can't see the other person, only the opposition. Yes, there are those manipulating the system, as I've even talked about here. But there is an overwhelming sweet, sweet spirit in this place, and I know it is the spirit of the Lord.
What I have witnessed is a focus on Holy Conferencing. People are listening to one another. People are open, people are searching, and people are leaving their own plans at home and coming to this with a spirit of love.
I heard about a delegate yesterday who said something like, I came with one vote in mind, thinking I had made up my mind on a situation. But when I heard the speeches of others in the room, I realized a new point of view and changed my vote.
My God, we're finally getting it! (Okay, maybe some have had it). If we could make up our minds before coming, and continued to think the way we had when we arrived, then we could hold General Conference by mail.
People are making the tough decisions, as the blog I linked to shows. And we're listening to one another.
In Ministry and Higher Ed yesterday, they voted on a petition regarding clergy's ability to officiate a same-sex union. The vote was very close, like 34-47 against, or something like that. But the discussion was honorable. People spoke strongly for, and strongly against, but there was no mud-throwing or disrespect to anyone in the room. Though the vote didn't go the way I wanted it to go, I was proud of the people in the room who honored one another. After the vote, the chair even pointed out how well the conversation went, and how she was thankful for the honoring of the humanity represented in the room.
We've only just begun. Today is really the first day that legislation will come to the floor of the entire body from the committees. I hope that this body will continue to have a spirit of holiness and faith as they move through the rest of this week, dealing with the tougher issues and working on less and less sleep.
Thank you to all who are praying for the General Conference delegates. I feel so immensely blessed to just be able to witness this. It is a beautiful thing.
Yes, there are politics. Yes, there is arguing. Yes, there are still those so caught up in themselves that they can't see the other person, only the opposition. Yes, there are those manipulating the system, as I've even talked about here. But there is an overwhelming sweet, sweet spirit in this place, and I know it is the spirit of the Lord.
What I have witnessed is a focus on Holy Conferencing. People are listening to one another. People are open, people are searching, and people are leaving their own plans at home and coming to this with a spirit of love.
I heard about a delegate yesterday who said something like, I came with one vote in mind, thinking I had made up my mind on a situation. But when I heard the speeches of others in the room, I realized a new point of view and changed my vote.
My God, we're finally getting it! (Okay, maybe some have had it). If we could make up our minds before coming, and continued to think the way we had when we arrived, then we could hold General Conference by mail.
People are making the tough decisions, as the blog I linked to shows. And we're listening to one another.
In Ministry and Higher Ed yesterday, they voted on a petition regarding clergy's ability to officiate a same-sex union. The vote was very close, like 34-47 against, or something like that. But the discussion was honorable. People spoke strongly for, and strongly against, but there was no mud-throwing or disrespect to anyone in the room. Though the vote didn't go the way I wanted it to go, I was proud of the people in the room who honored one another. After the vote, the chair even pointed out how well the conversation went, and how she was thankful for the honoring of the humanity represented in the room.
We've only just begun. Today is really the first day that legislation will come to the floor of the entire body from the committees. I hope that this body will continue to have a spirit of holiness and faith as they move through the rest of this week, dealing with the tougher issues and working on less and less sleep.
Thank you to all who are praying for the General Conference delegates. I feel so immensely blessed to just be able to witness this. It is a beautiful thing.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
10.5 Hours of Sleep
So, I got 10.5 hours of sleep last night! It was blissful! Mark had to work late, and we decided to sleep in and come in for the afternoon sessions. There was worship and plenary this morning, and not much to pass except for consent calendar items, so I don't think we missed much.
Some committees are done with their work - sub-committees have reported and the committees have worked through all of their legislation. Then there are others...Higher Ed, Church and Society, to name a few. They still have a LONG way to go, and they're supposed to be finished today, and they're not supposed to work tonight after about 4:30 because there's a huge dinner being hosted for all the delegates with a presentation, or something about Texas. Not really sure what it is, I'm not going (tickets for non-delegates are $25!), but it's a pretty big deal. I don't know if committees will press on and skip the dinner, or try to work in committee time outside the schedule.
Some committees are done with their work - sub-committees have reported and the committees have worked through all of their legislation. Then there are others...Higher Ed, Church and Society, to name a few. They still have a LONG way to go, and they're supposed to be finished today, and they're not supposed to work tonight after about 4:30 because there's a huge dinner being hosted for all the delegates with a presentation, or something about Texas. Not really sure what it is, I'm not going (tickets for non-delegates are $25!), but it's a pretty big deal. I don't know if committees will press on and skip the dinner, or try to work in committee time outside the schedule.
Interesting Committee Observations
I sat in on the sub-committee for Church and Society 2 last night (Saturday), the one dealing with issues of humanity - cloning, embryonic stem cell research, etc.
I don't have much to say on the actual issues. But it was interesting to observe the process they were using.
The other committees I've looked in on have been pretty relaxed, holding discussion and working toward consensus in holy conferencing. The chairs have been guiding and inclusive, reiterating as necessary, even drawing up documents to pull together the conversation, making sure everyone is on the same page.
The committee last night was a little different. They began every petition by having someone vote to adopt or reject the proposed legislation, and several times got bogged down in the semantics of Robert's Rules, because they tried to have open dialogue in the context of Robert's rules, and it wasn't really working that well.
This afternoon (Sunday), I went into Global Ministries. I thought that the standing rules had been changed so that the committees will vote on the actual petitions, and the same in the plenary, as opposed to voting concurrence or non-concurrence with the committee. But GM was voting concurrence/non-concurrence with the sub-committee. They were also not having people vote yea, they only asked for votes of no or not-voting. It made things go fast, because the pages didn't have to count all of the yes votes, they just subtracted the numbers of no's or not voting's.
I'm for doing what works. But I'm afraid, especially with the concurrence/non-concurrence voting, that things may get confusing when they return to the plenary.
I don't have much to say on the actual issues. But it was interesting to observe the process they were using.
The other committees I've looked in on have been pretty relaxed, holding discussion and working toward consensus in holy conferencing. The chairs have been guiding and inclusive, reiterating as necessary, even drawing up documents to pull together the conversation, making sure everyone is on the same page.
The committee last night was a little different. They began every petition by having someone vote to adopt or reject the proposed legislation, and several times got bogged down in the semantics of Robert's Rules, because they tried to have open dialogue in the context of Robert's rules, and it wasn't really working that well.
This afternoon (Sunday), I went into Global Ministries. I thought that the standing rules had been changed so that the committees will vote on the actual petitions, and the same in the plenary, as opposed to voting concurrence or non-concurrence with the committee. But GM was voting concurrence/non-concurrence with the sub-committee. They were also not having people vote yea, they only asked for votes of no or not-voting. It made things go fast, because the pages didn't have to count all of the yes votes, they just subtracted the numbers of no's or not voting's.
I'm for doing what works. But I'm afraid, especially with the concurrence/non-concurrence voting, that things may get confusing when they return to the plenary.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Free Cell Phones - The Price?
Interesting things are going on in our church.
If you're familiar with UMAction, you're probably familiar with the IRD. The IRD is the Institute on Religion and Democracy. They have been prominent in influencing General Conference by sending out materials and taking positions on generally conservative issues. They want to return the church to a more conservative mindset, focused on the sole authority of the Bible.
I get stuff in the mail from them all of the time. I do actually read it, just to know what they're saying. But I am always stressed out by it, and I become very frustrated at what is being sent out in the name of my church, because I do not agree with their exclusive mindset.
Well, word has gotten out at GC that the IRD has given free cell phones to the Central Conference delegates, along with printed information of who the IRD would like to see as members of the Judicial Council.
I'm sorry, but that sounds like bribery to me. Call it what you want, but if it looks like a duck and quacks (or rings...) like a duck, then it's probably a duck.
There was an article in the DCA that called the IRD on this. It was balanced - it had interviews from Central conference delegates who did not feel that they had been influenced in their vote, and others who did not accept the phones because they did not want their vote to be bought.
This morning in the session, someone made a motion that the 2012 GC Commission would study and present information regarding, basically, an Ethics Committee for the General Conference, a body to review issues like this, as there currently is nothing of the sort.
I think there is going to be some serious backlash to the IRD as a result of this. When the person made the motion and the bishop asked for a second, there was an overwhelming response. I will be interested to see where this goes.
If you're familiar with UMAction, you're probably familiar with the IRD. The IRD is the Institute on Religion and Democracy. They have been prominent in influencing General Conference by sending out materials and taking positions on generally conservative issues. They want to return the church to a more conservative mindset, focused on the sole authority of the Bible.
I get stuff in the mail from them all of the time. I do actually read it, just to know what they're saying. But I am always stressed out by it, and I become very frustrated at what is being sent out in the name of my church, because I do not agree with their exclusive mindset.
Well, word has gotten out at GC that the IRD has given free cell phones to the Central Conference delegates, along with printed information of who the IRD would like to see as members of the Judicial Council.
I'm sorry, but that sounds like bribery to me. Call it what you want, but if it looks like a duck and quacks (or rings...) like a duck, then it's probably a duck.
There was an article in the DCA that called the IRD on this. It was balanced - it had interviews from Central conference delegates who did not feel that they had been influenced in their vote, and others who did not accept the phones because they did not want their vote to be bought.
This morning in the session, someone made a motion that the 2012 GC Commission would study and present information regarding, basically, an Ethics Committee for the General Conference, a body to review issues like this, as there currently is nothing of the sort.
I think there is going to be some serious backlash to the IRD as a result of this. When the person made the motion and the bishop asked for a second, there was an overwhelming response. I will be interested to see where this goes.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Committee Hopping
I'm committee hopping this evening.
Mark asked me to sit in on Discipleship to see what's going on with the hymnal. The sub-committee has passed the resolution that deals with creating a hymnal to be submitted for approval at the 2012 GC. (remember, it still has to pass through the whole committee, and then through the whole conference, but it's on its way!) There was a good consensus from the group on this. They had obviously been talking about it, and the chair had created a document to kind of bring together the thoughts regarding a new hymnal. There will be one for the church, and they acknowledge that it will be primarily used in the US, but that it can be "a prologue to additional future work for other regions of the world-wide United Methodist Church."
After than I mozeyed my way over to the sub-committee dealing with human sexuality. They were working on a petition to adopt language about homosexuality that says we are conflicted, and have yet to receive movement from the holy spirit as to where we should stand on this issue, but in the conflict, we as a church urge the UMC and other churches to not pass judgement on anyone because of their sexuality.
I'm afraid it won't pass the entire body because of that last part...though I have to say, didn't God say something about do not judge, lest you be judged?
After that, I traveled on and sat in on Higher Ed talking about deacons' sacramental rights. Pretty good discussion. I kind of came in in the middle, so I'm not clear what they were specifically talking about, but basically I think they were discussing granting deacons the ability to proceed over the sacraments under the oversight of the bishop, and mainly focused in areas outside the local church, in an effort to bring the sacraments to places they would not have previously gone. Some of the response to that was that we have enough issue helping the lay of our congregations understand why the liscensed local pastor with (often but not always) limited education and training has sacramental rights, and the deacon with an M.Div. doesn't. Point being, it would further confuse people if only some deacons have sacramental rights (those serving "in the world" and others don't (those serving in a local congregation).
The issue with granting blanket ability to the sacraments to deacons is the understanding of the order of deacon as we now know it - that deacons are ordained to service and word, not sacraments.
This is an issue I have thought some about, but still don't really know where I stand. On the one hand, I can see how a distinction between the order of deacon and order of elder can and is a good thing. But at the same time, I really don't think it's right that liscensed local pastors have sacramental rights while deacons don't. I think the sub-committee decided to send that to a sub-sub-committee for more discussion on the wording they want to present. It'll be interesting to see where it comes out. I think it will be granted within the oversight of the bishop, ds, or elder.
Alright, I'm headed home for the evening, I hope! I'll be back on tomorrow. Thanks for reading!
Mark asked me to sit in on Discipleship to see what's going on with the hymnal. The sub-committee has passed the resolution that deals with creating a hymnal to be submitted for approval at the 2012 GC. (remember, it still has to pass through the whole committee, and then through the whole conference, but it's on its way!) There was a good consensus from the group on this. They had obviously been talking about it, and the chair had created a document to kind of bring together the thoughts regarding a new hymnal. There will be one for the church, and they acknowledge that it will be primarily used in the US, but that it can be "a prologue to additional future work for other regions of the world-wide United Methodist Church."
After than I mozeyed my way over to the sub-committee dealing with human sexuality. They were working on a petition to adopt language about homosexuality that says we are conflicted, and have yet to receive movement from the holy spirit as to where we should stand on this issue, but in the conflict, we as a church urge the UMC and other churches to not pass judgement on anyone because of their sexuality.
I'm afraid it won't pass the entire body because of that last part...though I have to say, didn't God say something about do not judge, lest you be judged?
After that, I traveled on and sat in on Higher Ed talking about deacons' sacramental rights. Pretty good discussion. I kind of came in in the middle, so I'm not clear what they were specifically talking about, but basically I think they were discussing granting deacons the ability to proceed over the sacraments under the oversight of the bishop, and mainly focused in areas outside the local church, in an effort to bring the sacraments to places they would not have previously gone. Some of the response to that was that we have enough issue helping the lay of our congregations understand why the liscensed local pastor with (often but not always) limited education and training has sacramental rights, and the deacon with an M.Div. doesn't. Point being, it would further confuse people if only some deacons have sacramental rights (those serving "in the world" and others don't (those serving in a local congregation).
The issue with granting blanket ability to the sacraments to deacons is the understanding of the order of deacon as we now know it - that deacons are ordained to service and word, not sacraments.
This is an issue I have thought some about, but still don't really know where I stand. On the one hand, I can see how a distinction between the order of deacon and order of elder can and is a good thing. But at the same time, I really don't think it's right that liscensed local pastors have sacramental rights while deacons don't. I think the sub-committee decided to send that to a sub-sub-committee for more discussion on the wording they want to present. It'll be interesting to see where it comes out. I think it will be granted within the oversight of the bishop, ds, or elder.
Alright, I'm headed home for the evening, I hope! I'll be back on tomorrow. Thanks for reading!
Local Church - Membership
I'm getting to see how a sub-committee works this afternoon. I started out sitting in Church and Society 2 (deals with all of the homosexual petitions), but decided that I wasn't quite ready to deal with that issue, so I decided to come over to local church.
Well, evidently God thought I was ready. I sat in on the Local Church sub-committee that's dealing with membership...i.e. pastoral authority over membership...i.e. can a pastor decide to not accept someone into membership because they are a professing, practicing homosexual. Great.
Here are some of my notes:
The conversation is interesting. There are about 15 people in this sub-committee (only 5 women, and several clergy). They have pretty much affirmed the membership vows found in paragraph 217. So now they're talking about pastoral authority. There is one person in particular, a pastor, who is expressing a strong concern for unbridled authority. He sees this going further than sexual orientation, and fears a church where pastors can hand-select the type of people who are a part of the church.
There are really three options here. (If anyone has another, please share!) Pastors have no say - anyone who takes the vows can join the church. Pastors have total authority to prevent anyone they (the pastor) think is not prepared to take the vows from becoming a member. The pastor has the opportunity to counsel someone for membership and recommend to that person that he or she is not prepared to take the membership vows, but if the person decides to continue, the pastor cannot prevent that from happening.
One person is saying that, though he's not sure how it needs to be worded, pastors should have the authority to prevent membership, but should be held responsible for that authority by the others in the community.
Wow...what an ideal situation. Isn't that how all of our churches are supposed to work? Members and pastors are mutually responsible to one another, called to be in covenant relationship, holding each other accountable. I pray for the day that such a church exists. I've currently found the closest thing to it, and am aware of other congregations where this works well. However, I have experienced pastors who take that authority to the next step and do not allow the members of the congregation, or even other staff members, to hold them accountable. They take an authoritarian stance of power of their congregations, and God save anyone who gets in their way.
The conversation I had with Mark this afternoon surrounded the issue of sin. Even if you see homosexuality as a sin (which I don't), we let professing sinners in the door every day who have no plans to quit - alcoholics, glutons, liars, heck, Jesus said it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven, but I don't see any pastors preventing the well-off of our culture from joining. We more often rejoice when a rich man joins the church, 'cause we're hoping he tithes.
We can't take the part of the gospel we like and leave the rest. I pray to God I'm not doing that - someone call me on it if I am. The basis of the gospel is the three-fold "rules" that they've been talking about all week. Do no harm. Do good. Stay in love with God. We have to admit that we are broken people, we have to admit that the creations of humans, including the rules of our church, are broken institutions. We cannot shut out those longing for community simply because they disagree with us. God's church is GOD's church, God's table is GOD's table. Call me inclusive, call me lovey-dovey, but the doors of the church and membership in that body should be open to all!
Some of the other issues outside of homosexuality related to that are what about molestors/rapists? What about thiefs? What about the people who seek to harm others, or have harmed others in the past...are we not allowed to "protect" ourselves from them? Certainly! Just at there is a justice system in our government to protect the people (flawed as it may be), we must protect ourselves from those who have weaknesses in certain areas. Child molestors should not be allowed to work with children. Embezelers should not be allowed to work with finance. But they should not be barred from the church. God's house is a place where we can come and confess our weaknesses, share in community, and be given the support and guidance we need to repent and turn away from the sin. If we're going to shut out one group of "sinners" then we need to shut them all out, and, as a result, close the doors of our church for good, because no one would be left.
Well, evidently God thought I was ready. I sat in on the Local Church sub-committee that's dealing with membership...i.e. pastoral authority over membership...i.e. can a pastor decide to not accept someone into membership because they are a professing, practicing homosexual. Great.
Here are some of my notes:
The conversation is interesting. There are about 15 people in this sub-committee (only 5 women, and several clergy). They have pretty much affirmed the membership vows found in paragraph 217. So now they're talking about pastoral authority. There is one person in particular, a pastor, who is expressing a strong concern for unbridled authority. He sees this going further than sexual orientation, and fears a church where pastors can hand-select the type of people who are a part of the church.
There are really three options here. (If anyone has another, please share!) Pastors have no say - anyone who takes the vows can join the church. Pastors have total authority to prevent anyone they (the pastor) think is not prepared to take the vows from becoming a member. The pastor has the opportunity to counsel someone for membership and recommend to that person that he or she is not prepared to take the membership vows, but if the person decides to continue, the pastor cannot prevent that from happening.
One person is saying that, though he's not sure how it needs to be worded, pastors should have the authority to prevent membership, but should be held responsible for that authority by the others in the community.
Wow...what an ideal situation. Isn't that how all of our churches are supposed to work? Members and pastors are mutually responsible to one another, called to be in covenant relationship, holding each other accountable. I pray for the day that such a church exists. I've currently found the closest thing to it, and am aware of other congregations where this works well. However, I have experienced pastors who take that authority to the next step and do not allow the members of the congregation, or even other staff members, to hold them accountable. They take an authoritarian stance of power of their congregations, and God save anyone who gets in their way.
The conversation I had with Mark this afternoon surrounded the issue of sin. Even if you see homosexuality as a sin (which I don't), we let professing sinners in the door every day who have no plans to quit - alcoholics, glutons, liars, heck, Jesus said it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven, but I don't see any pastors preventing the well-off of our culture from joining. We more often rejoice when a rich man joins the church, 'cause we're hoping he tithes.
We can't take the part of the gospel we like and leave the rest. I pray to God I'm not doing that - someone call me on it if I am. The basis of the gospel is the three-fold "rules" that they've been talking about all week. Do no harm. Do good. Stay in love with God. We have to admit that we are broken people, we have to admit that the creations of humans, including the rules of our church, are broken institutions. We cannot shut out those longing for community simply because they disagree with us. God's church is GOD's church, God's table is GOD's table. Call me inclusive, call me lovey-dovey, but the doors of the church and membership in that body should be open to all!
Some of the other issues outside of homosexuality related to that are what about molestors/rapists? What about thiefs? What about the people who seek to harm others, or have harmed others in the past...are we not allowed to "protect" ourselves from them? Certainly! Just at there is a justice system in our government to protect the people (flawed as it may be), we must protect ourselves from those who have weaknesses in certain areas. Child molestors should not be allowed to work with children. Embezelers should not be allowed to work with finance. But they should not be barred from the church. God's house is a place where we can come and confess our weaknesses, share in community, and be given the support and guidance we need to repent and turn away from the sin. If we're going to shut out one group of "sinners" then we need to shut them all out, and, as a result, close the doors of our church for good, because no one would be left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
