MAY 13TH TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION

Sunday, May 13^th

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.