Skip to main content.
A Reconciling Congregation of the United Methodist Church
210 N. Ruby Street • Ellensburg, WA 98926 • 509-962-9257 • eburgumc@elltel.net

Pastor Mark Williams

Delegate Reports

Day 2 - Tuesday, April 27

At the delegate orientation this morning, we sat in the plenary hall for the first time. Delegates were instructed in using the electronic voting machines. There was considerable concern and suspicion voiced over the accuracy of the electronic voting, as delegates rose to remind the conference that in previous quadrennia, whole sections of votes were uncounted, affecting significant changes in the outcome of important votes.

The Commission on the Status and Role of Women (COSROW) led a presentation that pointed out that the General Conference has far to go in living peaceably, respectfully and safely with one another. Incidents were cited from General Conference 2000 in Cleveland, where two young women delegates were groped by a male delegate who justified his behavior by explaining that the women were wearing short skirts. Another incident in 2000 was cited that exposed how people of color were shown disrespect. Somehow I don't remember these incidents being mentioned in the official United Methodist News Service coverage of General Conference four years ago. We were all encouraged to treat one another with respect and given specific instructions about appropriate behavior and interactions.

The Commission on General Conference reported two items that I took particular note of. First, the Commission on General Conference relayed their considerable frustration and disappointment that the United States government had refused or delayed approving travel visas for many of our international delegates to General Conference this year. While recognizing the realities of increased security concerns that arose since General Conference met four years ago, the Commission pointed out that the obstacles placed in the way of some of our delegates ability to travel to the United States appeared arbitrary and unfair. There were several dozens of empty seats on the floor of plenary, apparently left vacant because of this issue of Central Conference delegates being denied entry to the country.

On a related note, the chair of the General Commission on General Conference reflected on rumors that they had heard that some people might be planning on challenging the credentials of delegates from "some annual conferences." This appeared to be a direct reference to talk among some on the far right that the Pacific Northwest delegation should be prevented from being seated because of our annual conference is perceived as being in "rebellion" in the wake of Pastor Karen Dammann's trial. The chair of the Commission, though, stated succinctly that such a challenge to credentials is simply not the way that we relate to one another as United Methodists. He firmly asserted that questioning the right of duly elected representatives to be seated would fly in the face of our values and history as a denomination. The comment felt encouraging to me, as a member of the Pacific Northwest delegation.

The opening worship service of General Conference began as the delegate orientation concluded. As the worship leaders filed in to take their places, a combined choir from about six congregations around the denomination assembled. The choir members from Foundry United Methodist Church, a Reconciling Congregation in Washington, D.C., processed in to take their seats among the assembled choir, each wearing a rainbow sticker on the front of their white surplices. These visible symbols of support and solidarity for the full inclusion of GLBT people in the church was encouraging and inspiring. I hated to see them leave at the end of worship.

The President of the Council of Bishops, Roediger Minor, preached a beautiful sermon challenging us all to consider how honestly our desires and actions reflect God's will and best interests or our own. He pointedly lifted up the blessing of our denomination's judicial review process that relies on God's guidance and principles of justice and fairness to discern how to relate to one another in the midst of disagreement. This seemed a clear, yet indirect reference to Pastor Karen Dammann's trial and a rejection of the many public criticisms that have been leveled at the verdict. The bishop appealed to us all to set aside our preconceived agendas in order to make room for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead us into unity of heart and clarity of mind. The appeal to unity and mutual respect as brothers and sisters in Christ felt encouraging.

At lunch, the Council of Bishops released a pastoral letter encouraging the General Conference to seek unity and love in the midst of disagreement over controversial topics such as sexuality. The letter stated that, "On some issues, including human sexuality, we are not of one opinion. At the same time, we are united in our commitment to Jesus Christ." This language is identical to the language in several petitions that the General Conference will vote on next week to change our Social Principles. The proposed changes would recognize this truth that the bishops have named, that United Methodists are of differing opinions about faith and homosexuality. It will be interesting to see if the General Conference votes reflect this honest statement of the way things are that the bishops have pointed out.

After lunch, Bishop Ken Carder from Mississippi gave the Episcopal Address, again appealing to us all to seek God's will and to embody God's work of reconciliation for all of the cosmos. He suggested that we may be tempted to retreat into enacting further rules and articulating stricter dogma to comfort our fears of each other and of a changing world. But, he asserted, fear is not the only force at work in the world. We need not fear, because God's victory in Christ is coming. Rules and dogma will not save us, he explained. We are already saved by the grace of God in Christ.

When the business of General Conference began, procedural motions became an early test of wills. The Committee on the Plan of Organization and Rules of Order presented a new proposal this year that bishops chair the thirteen legislative committee meetings, rather than our tradition of having the committees elect their chairpersons from among their own membership. Several speakers pointed out that the election of chairpersons has become disenfranchising and extremely political, as some have been able to come prepared with a slate and a voting strategy that predetermines who will be elected into key leadership roles. In the end, the proposal to have bishops chair committee meetings was defeated by narrowly (54%) adopting an amendment that struck this provision from the report of the Committee on the Plan of Organization and Rules of Order. Significantly, over ten percent of the eligible votes were not cast in this or any of the afternoon's voting, almost certainly a reflection of the absence of many international delegates.

After the plenary, everyone divided into their assigned legislative committees. As a first alternate delegate, I was not allowed to participate in a legislative committee, but I am observing the Church and Society committee on behalf of our delegation. It appeared to me that the criticisms of the political and predetermined nature of the election of committee officers was well-founded. A conservative woman from Oklahoma was elected chairperson of the committee, along with a pastor from Memphis as vice-chair and a young man from South Carolina as secretary. Even before the final slate had been elected, the woman who was elected chairperson made a comment about who she expected to be elected as her fellow officers. It clearly appeared that this had all been worked out by a powerful Southern caucus ahead of time, and the voting was merely a formality.

But when the Church and Society committee officers returned from dinner with a plan in hand for dividing the committee into subcommittees, a remarkable thing happened. The chairperson announced that she and her fellow officers had decided which petitions would be considered by each subcommittee, and they had already determined who would serve as chairpersons of the subcommittees. But a motion was made from the floor that such non-democratic procedures seemed inconsistent with the value of democratic principles that had just been voiced on the floor of the plenary session earlier in the day. The committee voted overwhelmingly to reject the subcommittee chairpersons appointed by the committee officers and instead empower each subcommittee to elect their own officers, just as the committee had elected its own leadership rather than allow bishops to be appointed as legislative chairpersons. Further, the committee chairperson proposed that those who wish to work in each subcommittee place their names in a hat, and then she would pull seven names from the hat to be appointed to each subcommittee. But again, the committee rejected this plan of organization in favor of allowing committee members to decide for themselves which subcommittees they wanted to be part of.

It appears to me that there has been extensive organizing and lining up of votes on the key issues faced by General Conference thus far. But while conservative delegates have managed to get elected to lead the Church and Society committee, the committee has exercised its own prerogative to reject some of the directives of that leadership. I've heard reports that some other legislative committees elected openly progressive delegates to lead their committee work.

Overall, I remain encouraged by the comments of the bishops and many of the speakers today. Many voices are calling for cooler heads and calmer hearts to do the work of General Conference. So far, no direct legislative attack has been launched against the PNW or the Western Jurisdiction. I hope that continues, and that the General Conference give equal time and weight to the variety of important issues it faces.

Mark Williams
Pacific Northwest Conference Delegation
First Alternate Delegate

Copyright 2004 by Mark Williams. All rights reserved.
Rev. Mark Williams may be reached by e-mail at revmarkwilliams@comcast.net