In today’s session, we dove into the details of the Traditional Plan, two petitions for disaffiliation and the One Church Plan.
It was disheartening to read a statement report in the United Methodist News service by Bishop Karen Oliveto. Bishop Oliveto, “who leads the Mountain Sky Conference and is the denomination’s first openly gay bishop, spoke to a gathering of LGBTQ saying “We are going to bring our love, our connection, our spirit, our joy because the church would die without us. Your life has meaning, your love inspires me, I keep going because you keep going” (UMNS Feb. 25, 2019, emphasis mine.) In my humble opinion, the vitality and life of the church are dependent on Jesus, the Lord of the Church, and not on any individual or group of individuals.
An attempt to postpone action on the Traditional plan failed, and the plan was debated and passed through the Legislative committee. An effort to reprioritize and delay discussion of the Traditional Plan (TP). The motion failed.
Several objections were raised which claimed that the Traditional plan was “not loving,” and “not of God.” These two objections, and others, claim to know what God wants apart from the Scripture. It is incredible that when traditionalists use arguments like this, they are criticized by progressives.
The assumption that the only loving thing is to allow a person to do whatever that person wants to do, but this is not the case. The word “no” is a loving response in many situations. I am reminded of the story of Jesus and the rich young ruler (Mark 10:17-22). Sometimes the most loving thing you can tell a person is, no.
On a similar note, the word “harm” has been used extensively in these discussions. The notion that because certain people are not granted privileges, they have been harmed in some way is a typical charge against those who hold to more conservative viewpoints. Disagreement and a lack of endorsement are not harm. Harm is defined as physical or mental damage in the 11th edition of Webster’s Dictionary. John Wesley’s rules for his Societies were to Do no harm, do good and attend upon all the ordinances of God. Wesley had specific things in mind when he said: “do no harm” (see the full rule here). To disagree with a person or tell a person they are not eligible for a specific privilege is not doing harm.
I was disappointed that it seemed that proponents of the TP were unable to distribute supplemental materials. If, as Maxie Dunham stated, he was not allowed to present the additional materials until it was offered on the floor, why did the Secretary of the Conference say otherwise? I have sent that question to those in the know, hopefully, they will respond soon.
The Traditional Plan was criticized on the floor of Conference for being wholly unconstitutional; however, that is not the case. Out of the 16 petitions needed to implement the Traditional Plan 8 were deemed to be unconstitutional. These issues could be fixed with small adjustments just as supporters of the One Church Plan (OCP) did during the discussion of that plan.
When the OCP came up for a vote, they offered no less than four amendments to bring their petitions in line with the Constitution, but they criticized proponents of the Traditional plan for doing the same thing.
Two disaffiliation petitions or gracious exit petitions passed.
One argument for the OCP is that people in churches often disagree and are able to do ministry together. That is true, not everyone sees eye to eye in local churches, and yet ministry can still happen. It is one thing to have disagreements in a local church, it is another to enshrine those differences in denominational policies which seek to soften or deny the Scriptural teaching.
It was amazing to me that some of the most impassioned pleas against the OCP came from Russia, a nation that was officially atheistic not so long ago. While OCP proponents claim that their plan would not affect the Central (overseas) Conference, it was demonstrated that by changing the definition of marriage in the Social Principles would affect them.
Another plan which was debated was the Simple Plan. In essence, the Simple plan removes all prohibitions against same-sex issues and hope to level the field so the church can be fully inclusive. After abundant discussion and debate, the Simple Plan was rejected and will not be forwarded to the Plenary session of General Conference.
This ended the Legislative session, and tomorrow the decisions will be presented to the General Conference Plenary session for final action.
One note on tomorrows session: I understand we must vacate the arena promptly at 6:30 pm so the staff can begin hauling in dirt for a monster truck rally. No really!