Delegate Reports
Day 4 - Thursday, April 29
Day 4 began late for me. The hours delegates are expected to keep at General Conference are exhausting. The committee hearing I attended on Wednesday night wrapped up after 10:30pm, and then the Western Jurisdiction delegations meeting began at 7:30 am this morning. I ended up sleeping a little late this morning in order to try to catch up on much needed rest.
The opening plenary session of the day started with nominations for Judicial Council and the University Senate. The bishops presented a list of nominees from each jurisdiction. Further nominations were taken from the floor of the conference. About 15 nominations for Judicial Council were added to the list of twelve candidates lifted up by the bishops. There are four vacancies this year on the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council and University Senate elections will take place on Monday.
The Treasurer of the General Council on Finance and Administration presented the GCF&A report to General Conference. She pointed out that the financial crisis being faced in local churches, conferences and the general church boards and agencies of the United Methodist Church are similar to the situations experienced by the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Southern Baptists in this country. Further, she implored the delegates to act with restraint in approving the GCF&A budget as well as dozens of additional petitions that have been submitted that would place additional strains on the general boards and agencies' financial resources.
Most of today was devoted to working in legislative committees. The Church and Society legislative committee worked in sub-sub-committee for most of the morning and afternoon. The sub-sub-committee considering petitions related to homosexuality in the Social Principles paragraph 161.G debated and voted from start to finish in two clear blocks. Nearly every vote of the 15 members of the sub-sub-committee were cast in a 9-6 split, with the majority supporting making no changes to the Disciplinary position on homosexuality and rejecting all petitions calling for the church to recognize that we hold differing opinions on the subject. Several times, progressive delegates on the sub-sub-committee pointed out the hypocrisy of voting 9-6 to deny that we are of differing opinions.
The petition submitted by the Pacific Northwest Conference, originated by my congregation, Woodland Park United Methodist Church was defeated by this same 9-6 margin. One progressive delegate argued very eloquently in support of our petition, praising its call for the church to continue in respectful Christian dialogue in order to continue to discern God's call in this matter. But the majority of the sub-sub-committee would entertain no changes.
But when the matter came to floor of the full Church and Society legislative committee this evening, a substitute motion was quickly proposed that would replace an endorsement of no change for a statement that would say, "Although United Methodists do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching, Christians hold differing opinions about the compatibility of homosexuality with Christian teaching." When it came time to vote on whether to accept this as a substitute motion, a written ballot was called for. The substitute was adopted for consideration as the main motion by a written ballot of 50-43.
I was completely taken by surprise by this vote. I didn't think the votes were there in the committee to get something like this approved. Apparently neither did the conservatives, who began scrambling to offer procedural motions to slow down debate as they considered their options. Finally one conservative delegate rose to make another substitute motion to return the main motion to the way it was originally, in effect. After extensive debate, when it came time to vote on this proposal two voices simultaneously shouted out calls for a standing vote count and for a written ballot. The chair, who had offered ineffective leadership all evening, was at a loss as to how to proceed with these two motions. Instructions and advice from the floor of the committee were shouted up at them as the elected committee leadership stumbled in how to respond. 1/3 vote is necessary to approve either a standing vote count or a written ballot. He called for a head-to-head vote of these two proposals. 43 of the committee members voted for a standing count, and 42 voted for a written ballot. Both sides had well over the 1/3 majority necessary.
The issue of a written ballot versus a standing vote count is more significant than it might appear. Clearly, from the way the votes are going so far in this committee, there are some delegates from predominantly conservative areas in our denomination who are voting in favor of changing the language in the Discipline to recognize our differences of opinion. These votes are likely in contrast to the opinions of the majority of their delegations and constituents. A written ballot, it is supposed, gives minority voices such as these the opportunity to vote their conscience without fear of reprisals from others from their delegations.
The committee adjourned in chaos with the issue unsettled. Prior to adjournment, the committee recommended that the chairperson of the committee consult with the Rules Committee of the conference concerning the dilemma that they find themselves in. It was also recommended that the committee leadership request a parliamentarian be provided by the Rules Committee to bring much needed clarity and consistency that has been lacking from the work of the committee thus far.
During a break in the committee hearing earlier today, a progressive delegate from the South observed that the most we could probably hope for would be to recognize our differences of opinion. In order to achieve more sweeping reforms, he said, "we're just going to have to wait for some people to die." I believe he meant that many elderly leaders of the conservative caucuses in the church will die before more moderate, younger leaders take their place and lead the church to more moderate positions.
But I believe others will also die, the longer we debate and remain entrenched in our pejorative language about homosexuality. The church's position reinforces the stigma of coming out for GLBT youth, many of which will continue to decide that it is better to kill themselves rather than be open with their families and friends about their sexual orientation. The church's position will continue to reinforce the shame felt by many GLBT persons who will remain in the closet and engage in unhealthy high risk behaviors in response to living closeted lives in fear of being known. The debate rages on as we argue parliamentary procedure and compromise. But as the debate continues, people will die, and others will leave the church, and others will abandon the faith entirely for its anachronistic stand on their lives and loves.
Tomorrow morning we will hold a worship service of repentance for the United Methodist culpability in racism in this country. In particular, we will celebrate and thank those African Americans who remained Methodists during some of the most bitter racial segregation and institutional discrimination in our church's history. How long will we have to wait before the church holds another service of repentance for its history of homophobia and discrimination against GLBT people?
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