Sunday, May 13th
Our topics this week:
The Way Forward
Defeated Amendments (RE-VOTE ORDERED)
Media and Communication
Technology
Governments and the
Church
THE
WAY FORWARD
For Immediate Release
May 4, 2018
CHICAGO – United Methodist bishops, meeting in Chicago, engaged
in a prayerful process to discern a way forward. At the
conclusion of the discernment process, the Council of Bishops
strongly approved the following motion and rationale:
Having received and considered the extensive work of the
Commission on a Way Forward, the Council of Bishops will submit a
report to the Special Session of the General Conference in 2019 that
includes:
All three plans (The
Traditionalist Plan, The One Church Plan and the Connectional
Conference Plan) for a way forward considered by the Commission and
the Council.
The
Council’s recommendation of the One Church Plan.
- An historical narrative of the Council’s
discernment process regarding all three plans.
Rationale: In order to invite the church to go
deeper into the journey the Council and Commission have been on, the
Council will make all the information considered by the Commission
and the Council of Bishops available to the delegates of the General
Conference and acknowledges there is support for each of the three
plans within the Council. The values of our global church are
reflected in all three plans. The majority of the Council
recommends the One Church Plan as the best way forward for The United
Methodist Church.
Guided by the
mission,
vision and scope document, the bishops agreed to recommend the
One Church Plan. This plan provides conferences, churches, and
pastors the flexibility to uniquely reach their missional context
while retaining the connectional nature of The United Methodist
Church.
The One Church Plan allows for contextualization of language about
human sexuality in support of the mission; and allows for central
conferences, especially those in Africa, to retain their disciplinary
authority to adapt the Book of Discipline and continue to include
traditional language and values while fulfilling the vision of a
global and multicultural church.
This plan also encourages a generous unity by giving United
Methodists the ability to address different missional contexts in
ways that reflect their theological convictions. The One Church Plan
removes the restrictive language of the Book of Discipline and adds
assurances to pastors and Conferences who due to their theological
convictions cannot perform same-sex weddings or ordain self-avowed
practicing homosexuals.
The Council’s discernment process was guided by the over-arching
desire to strategically help the General Conference do its work and
to honor the General Conference’s request for the Council to help
the church find a way forward.
“With convicted humility, bishops want to be pastors and
shepherds of the whole church in order to maximize the presence of a
United Methodist witness in as many places in the world as possible
and with as much contextual differentiation as possible,” said
newly installed Council of Bishops President Ken Carter.
The bishops expressed deep appreciation for the diligent work that
the 32-member Commission on a Way Forward did in formulating the
three plans: the Traditionalist Plan, the One Church Plan and the
Connectional Conference Plan.
While the bishops recommended the One Church Plan, they affirmed
that the Connectional Conference Plan and the Traditionalist Plan
held values that are important to the life and work of the church and
will be included in the final report to the Special Session of
General Conference that the bishops have called for Feb. 23-26 in St.
Louis, Missouri, USA.
Bishop Carter, who served as one of the moderators of the
Commission, said the bishops are adopting a spirit of collaboration
with the Commission, and an attitude of respect for the delegations
who will take up this work on behalf of the whole church.
“The Council’s prayerful deliberation reflected the diversity
of the global denomination on the matter of homosexuality and many
other matters. The Council affirms the strength of this
diversity and our commitment to maintain the unity of the church,”
Bishop Carter said.
Full details of the plans and accompanying legislative proposals
will be released as soon as final editing of the entire report is
completed and translated into the official languages of the General
Conference. It is estimated this will be no later than July 8.
THE
DEFEATED AMENDMENTS
A PASTORAL LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
FROM THE WOMEN BISHOPS
May 7, 2018
Grace and peace! We, the active and retired women bishops of The
United Methodist Church, are writing in response to the news release
this week, announcing the results of five proposed amendments to our
Constitution that were approved at the 2016 General Conference and
then sent on to the annual conferences.
We are deeply grieved that
two of the amendments did not receive the necessary 2/3 aggregate
vote of all the annual conferences in The United Methodist Church.
Both are related to the right of girls, women, and other vulnerable
groups to full access to a meaningful life. Amendment
#1, which added language that both men and women are made in the
image of God and that we will confront and seek to eliminate
discrimination against women and girls, received an aggregate vote of
66.5%, falling short of the necessary 2/3 majority by .2 % (less than
100 votes). Amendment #2, which added this language, “…
nor shall any member be denied access to an equal place in the life,
worship, and governance of the Church because of race, color, gender,
national origin, ability, age, marital status, or economic
condition,” received an aggregate vote of
61.3%, again falling short of a 2/3 vote. The complete
language of these two amendments is found below. Like Rachel weeping
for her children, so we as episcopal leaders weep for our church. We
weep for the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual harm that is
inflicted upon women and girls because of this action. We weep for
those who are denied the ability to use their gifts to make a
difference in the world. We also weep for those who are not protected
from exclusion in the church because of race, color, gender, national
origin, ability, age, marital status, or economic condition. We see
you. We weep with you. We seek your healing. We work for the healing
of our church. We strive for a church and world that honors every
person as a beloved child of God, made in the image of our Creator.
The women of the Council of Bishops recognize that we have much work
to do as leaders to foster inclusion in The United Methodist Church.
At the same time as we lament the devaluation of and discrimination
against many groups of people in our world, we renew our commitment
as United Methodist women bishops to ensure that all people are
treated with respect, compassion, and grace and that all doors of
opportunity and leadership are open to them. We pledge to model
healthy relationships ourselves and are committed to researching why
these amendments failed and what actions we can take to create a
world where all people are able to live in safety, justice, and love.
This pastoral letter has been unanimously affirmed by the entire
Council of Bishops. We invite you to join us in the journey of
bringing God’s shalom to all corners of The United Methodist Church
and our world.
Error forces revote on failed constitutional
amendment
By Kathy L. Gilbert
May 11, 2018 (UMNS)
Annual conference voters around the globe will be revoting on one
of two constitutional amendments dealing with women’s equality. The
revote was announced after the Ask The UMC team and United Methodist
News Service learned of an error and reported it on May 10 to the
Rev. Gary Graves, secretary of General Conference.
At the 2016 General Conference, when the Independent Commissions
Committee considered Amendment 1, it deleted the sentence, “The
United Methodist Church recognizes it is contrary to Scripture and to
logic to say that God is male or female, as maleness and femaleness
are characteristics of human bodies and cultures, not characteristics
of the divine.” The amended copy also changed the last sentence to
“The United Methodist Church shall work collaboratively with others
to address concerns that threaten women’s and girls’ equality and
well-being.”
“As the petition was processed and then the constitutional
amendments were prepared to go out to annual conferences, it appears
that ‘delete the second sentence in its entirety’ was missed,”
Graves said. “So the words that went to annual conferences
contained text that should have been stricken before it went out.”
The amendments were originally sent to bishops and annual
conference secretaries in late 2016 by the former secretary of the
General Conference, the Rev. Gere Reist. Both Reist and Graves
apologized for the error.
Graves told the Commission on General Conference that since the
material was wrong, he consulted with the Council of Bishops about
how to address the error. The correct wording of the amendment will
be sent to the conferences next week. Since some annual and
central conferences have already held their sessions this year, their
voting will take place next year.
When United Methodist News Service reached out to conference
delegates who voted no on this amendment, many cited that sentence as
the reason for their votes.
The Liberia Conference voted against both amendments dealing with
women’s equality with 956 no votes on Amendment 1 and no votes
supporting the amendment. On Amendment 2,
which would have added gender, ability, age and marital status to the
list of characteristics that do not bar people from membership in the
church, 955 Liberian delegates voted no and one delegate voted yes.
The Rev. Jerry Kulah, who was a 2016 General Conference delegate,
wrote an analysis after the vote in May that was published in Juicy
Ecumenism. “We are in total agreement, and consistent with
Scripture (Genesis. 1:26-27; 9:6; I Corinthians 11:7), that humanity
is made in the image of God. Therefore both male and female are of
equal value before God. We also stand strongly opposed to
discrimination against women and girls, for we are all God’s
children. However, we strongly opposed the reference that ‘it is
contrary to Scripture and to logic’ to acknowledge or claim the
maleness or fatherhood of God.” Kulah did not respond to e-mails
requesting further comment.
In debate at the North Texas Conference, John Dorff of Highland
Park United Methodist Church spoke against the amendment,
specifically the phrase that says, “The United Methodist Church
recognizes it is contrary to Scripture and to logic to say that God
is male or female…” In the minutes reported in the conference
journal, Dorff concluded that God is represented in Scripture as
male.
Dorff greeted the revote as "great news."
"During the debate last year I said I would have supported
the amendment if it didn't have that specific line in it. I will be
happy to support it as soon as I have the opportunity at annual
conference," he said.
North Texas did vote 436-192 for the amendment.
To be ratified, each constitutional amendment first requires at
least a two-thirds majority vote at General Conference, which
happened in 2016. Then, each must win at least 66.7 percent of the
total votes at annual conferences around the world. That voting took
place in 2017 and early 2018.
The Council of Bishops announced the results of the voting on May
7. The first amendment, the one with the error, failed by fewer than
100 votes with a 66.5 percent tally — 31,304 yes and 15,753 no. The
second amendment received 61.3 percent, shy of 2,529 votes to ratify
with 29,049 yes votes and 18,317 no.
The
bishops expressed “dismay” at the outcome of the two women’s
equality amendments.
The female bishops issued a separate pastoral
letter expressing “lament” over the results.
Several bishops, pastors and laity have been expressing pain over
the votes on Facebook posts.
United Methodist Young Clergywomen, a subgroup of Young
Clergywomen International, is circulating a letter
about the votes on both amendments.
The Rev. Janessa Chastain, one of the authors of the letter,
responded to the news of the revote by urging all delegates to vote
at their annual conferences.
“The news of this revote means that we United Methodists have a
rare opportunity to right an injustice. While this doesn’t erase
the painful message sent by the first vote, The United Methodist
Church has the opportunity to send a new message.
“We urge those who voted against Amendment I to listen to women
and learn why it matters to them that God made them in the Divine
image. We also urge all disappointed by the original vote to remember
that Amendment I failed by a margin of fewer than one hundred votes.
In light of this, we urge all clergy and delegates to vote at their
respective annual conferences. Your vote matters. Show up. Vote.
Affirm that God has created women and men equal in God’s image,”
she told United Methodist News Service.
UMNS reported the error and asked for a comment May 10. Graves
asked the news not be released until May 11, and UMNS honored that
agreement.
UMNS and Ask the UMC compared the text of all five amendments to
the text submitted to the conference secretaries. The other four
amendments are correct.
2020
DRAFT SOCIAL PRINCIPLES
The
Social Community
N.
Media and Communication Technology
Scripture
offers this counsel, “Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever
is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is
pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if
there is anything worthy o
f
praise, think on these things” (Philippians 4:8, NRSV). Because
effective, personal communication empowers and affords members of
society the privilege and responsibility to participate more fully,
and because of the power afforded by information communication
technologies to shape society, we believe that access to these
technologies is a basic right. Technology should be open and
accessible to all.
Technologies
may be used to enhance the quality of life and provide a means for
social
interaction
with governments, peoples, and cultures across the world. However,
technologies
can also distort and damage relationships within communities and the
larger society. The manipulation of media for false, illicit, or
illegal means damages human and diminishes our common life together.
We
support freedom of the press and universal, open access to
technological
communication
and informational services.
We
support the regulation and oversight of media communication
technologies to ensure reliable and independent information sources
are available to all.
Denying
access of basic and accurate information, through communication
technologies and their infrastructures, due to financial cost or
availability, limits participation in government and society. We
support the goal of universal and affordable technological
communication and informational services.
CURRENT
SOCIAL PRINCIPLES
Information
Communication Technology
Because effective personal communication is key to
being a responsible and empowered member of society, and because of
the power afforded by information communication technologies to shape
society and enable individuals to participate more fully, we believe
that access to these technologies is a basic right.
Information communication technologies provide us
with information, entertainment, and a voice in society. They can be
used to enhance our quality of life and provide us with a means to
interact with each other, our government, and people and cultures all
over the world. Most information about world events comes to us by
the broadcast, cable, print media, and the Internet. Concentrating
the control of media to large commercial interests limits our choices
and often provides a distorted view of human values. Therefore, we
support the regulation of media communication technologies to ensure
a variety of independent information sources and provide for the
public good.
Personal communication technologies such as the
Internet allow persons to communicate with each other and access vast
information resources that can have commercial, cultural, political,
and personal value. While the Internet can be used to nurture minds
and spirits of children and adults, it is in danger of being overrun
with commercial interests and is used by some to distribute
inappropriate and illegal material. Therefore, the Internet must be
managed responsibly in order to maximize its benefits while
minimizing its risks, especially for children. Denying access in
today’s world to basic information communication technologies like
the Internet due to their cost or availability, limits people’s
participation in their government and society. We support the goal of
universal access to telephone and Internet services at an affordable
price.
2020
DRAFT SOCIAL PRINCIPLES
The
Political Community
A.
Governments and the Church
As
revealed both in God’s Word and in God’s world, “God alone
reigns over the whole of creation” (Luke 12:22-‐32, NRSV).
As Christians, we recognize the ultimate sovereignty of God, and yet
are subject to human laws. Though the formal relationship between
church and state may vary from nation to nation, the Church affirms
the independence and integrity of both institutions as having utmost
importance, with neither church nor state, attempting to control or
dominate the other.
Remembering
the biblical injunction to protect, “sojourners, widows and
orphans” (cf. Lev. 19:9-‐10; Deut. 10:18, NRSV), it is the
obligation of governments and the Church to
demonstrate
care for those who are socially disadvantaged or who lack adequate
access to resources needed to thrive, including those who are
rendered stateless as a result of internal and external conflict or
disaster.
As
a Church, we are committed to respect and pray for those who bear a
responsibility
to
govern, even as we exercise a public and prophetic role to challenge
those who hold
authority,
and to advocate for those living in vulnerable and oppressed
communities.
CURRENT
SOCIAL PRINCIPLES
Church
and State Relations
The United Methodist Church has for many years supported the
separation of church and state. In some parts of the world this
separation has guaranteed the diversity of religious expressions and
the freedom to worship God according to each person’s conscience.
Separation of church and state means no organic union of the two, but
it does permit interaction. The state should not use its authority to
promote particular religious beliefs (including atheism), nor should
it require prayer or worship in the public schools, but it should
leave students free to practice their own religious convictions. We
believe that the state should not attempt to control the church, nor
should the church seek to dominate the state. The rightful and vital
separation of church and state, which has served the cause of
religious liberty, should not be misconstrued as the abolition of all
religious expression from public life.
