Three legislative items passed the Oregon-Idaho Conference of The United Methodist Church at their annual meeting in mid-June 2016 that together cast a vision for the future of United Methodism.
Affirmed Ordained Ministry for All Persons
At the start of the week, the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry shared a statement that they had crafted together that was similar to the ones shared in recent months by New York, Baltimore-Washington, Pacific Northwest and Northern Illinois Conferences, namely to say that they would not consider orientation or sexual identity that exclude LGBTQ persons from ministry.
Here’s the statements in image form:
Then the Clergy Session eventually approved a similar statement…which I believe is unique as other Conferences passed this statement in their Boards of Ordained Ministries, not the full clergy session. It passed with over 80%.
In these ways, they allow all qualified candidates to serve in ordained ministry, including all sexual orientations and gender identities.
Joined the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Next, the Conference passed on a floor vote two petitions that supported the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and caused the Oregon-Idaho Conference to actually join the Coalition. Here’s the petitions (pages 3-6).
Here’s why this is important:
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is an important interfaith advocacy group for women’s health. This resolution would state that the Oregon-Idaho Annual Conference supports RCRC and would become a member of RCRC.
For over 40 years RCRC has been a voice for reproductive choice and has been active in working with people- especially those at the margins- at the intersection of faith, policy, and reproductive life. Denominational support was removed in 2016 by General Conference. We in Oregon-Idaho stand with women and those persons who can become pregnant in recognizing that reproductive choices should happen between a person and their doctor. We want to clearly say that we disagree with removal of the denominational membership and offer our public support instead.
Since the General Conference denied to participate in reproductive health advocacy for women, I’m glad my annual conference has chosen to maintain the relationship, although at a lower level than before. This shows that what General Conference undoes, the Annual Conferences can lead on, albeit in a patchwork form.
Full disclosure: I was the spokesperson for this legislation, written by a fellow clergyperson in my conference.
A Moratorium and Guidelines for the Bishops’ Commission
Finally, the Conference passed on a floor vote a petition supporting the Bishops’ Commission studying human sexuality. Here’s the petition (pages 7-9). Here’s why this is important:
A Way Forward is the Bishops’ Special Commission to study and rewrite The United Methodist Church’s policies on human sexuality for consideration by a called General Conference or the 2020 General Conference. This resolution would state that the Oregon-Idaho Annual Conference supports this process and gives our hopes for the Commission’s best process.
Institutions move slowly and have sometimes unhelpful timelines for action. It is important that the Council of Bishops hear the wishes of the people most affected by the harmful policies of the Book of Discipline and that the Special Commission implement timelines and considerations that meet the needs of the Annual Conferences and local churches to continue being in faithful, full ministry, with our vibrant and diverse communities. This is a painful process for us all and too often fear and hesitance intercede when we are called by the spirit to be bold and take action. Continuing to call for action and to hold the bishops and the commission accountable will mitigate the spiritually corrosive factors of bureaucratic inertia and institutional malaise.
Hopefully the Bishops will take these considerations into account as they form this Commission.
Full disclosure: I was the spokesperson for this legislation, which originated from the Love Your Neighbor Coalition.
Thoughts?
Last week, I proposed two ways how Annual Conferences could help the denomination. It turns out that my own Annual Conference followed through on both recommendations and is one of the Conferences leading The UMC in showing what a progressive and inclusive Wesleyan perspective looks like.
May others soon follow and lead in their own ways as we discern what this interim period between death and new life looks like.
Thoughts?
The more I read about Annual Conferences responding to General Conference …
The more I follow the actions being reported on Social Media …
The less hope I have that the denomination (as I now know it) will survive into the future.
Both ends of the spectrum are digging their heels in and issuing challenges.
I fully realize that we (at least Jeremy and I) are on different sides of this issue. Im not certain that I see a way forward that either of us can embrace – and it saddens me.
Maybe the General Conference did simply “kick the can” down the road – maybe the Spirit of God will work through the Bishops Commission. At the moment I can only (literally) pack for my upcoming move to a new appointment and pray for this denomination that I love so much.
Peace to you …
They also completed their work to divest from Caterpillar, HP and Motorola because of the three companies’ involvement in the illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territories.
Oregon-Idaho claims to have been a Reconciling Conference since 1996. I’m not sure if its leadership is best characterized as ignorant or arrogant, because the Judicial Council ruled in 1998 that it may not be so. Decision No. 847 stipulates, in part:
“An Annual Conference may not identify or label itself as an unofficial body or movement (such as, but not limited to, a ‘Confessing Conference’, ‘Reconciling Conference’, or ‘Transforming Conference’). Such identification or labeling is divisive and makes the official bodies of the Church subject to the possibility of being in conflict with the Discipline and doctrines of The United Methodist Church.”
A year later Decision No. 871 further prohibited local churches or any of its organizational units from so identifying or labeling themselves.
That label is not used anywhere in publication. The label doesn’t matter. We’re the same people with or without the label, and that’s what matters. I’m sorry that is what you found important to comment on.
Were the statements from the Board of Ordained Ministry and the Clergy Session not published? If not, what has Jeremy reproduced? Because both statements clearly include, “Because we have been a Reconciling Conference since 1996…” If the leadership of the AC does not wish to self-identify as Reconciling, are the clergy woefully out of sync with the Conference?
No one disputes that individuals can and do find themselves at variance with provisions in the BoD and other decisions made both by the GC and JC. But continuing to self-label 18 years after the JC spoke so clearly is both defiant and schismatic behavior.
Had RCRC, in the face of advances in scientific and medical knowledge concerning prenatal life, backed away from its advocacy of the unfettered use of abortion as has the UM Social Principles, General Conference 2016 would not have acted to sever ties with it. The UMC has a carefully nuanced understanding of abortion within the Christian community. We recognize that life sometimes conflicts with life, yet we cannot support abortion as a means of birth control, gender selection; nor can we tolerate the grisly procedure commonly known as “partial birth abortion.” RCRC hasn’t backed away. Why would any self-professing Christian support the intentional termination of life, so lovingly and carefully crafted by God, under such conditions? How arrogant to determine that some preborn life is of more sacred worth than other.
Were the statements from the Board of Ordained Ministry and the Clergy Session not published? If not, what has Jeremy reproduced? Because both statements clearly include, “Because we have been a Reconciling Conference since 1996…” If the leadership of the AC does not wish to self-identify as Reconciling, are the clergy woefully out of sync with the Conference?
No one disputes that individuals can and do find themselves at variance with provisions in the BoD and other decisions made both by the GC and JC. But continuing to self-label 18 years after the JC spoke so clearly is both defiant and schismatic behavior.
Had RCRC, in the face of great advances in scientific and medical knowledge concerning prenatal life over the past 40 years, backed away from its advocacy of the unfettered use of abortion as has the UM Social Principles, General Conference 2016 would not have acted to sever ties with it (as have the American Baptists for the same reasons). The UMC has a carefully nuanced understanding of abortion within the Christian community. We recognize that life sometimes conflicts with life, yet we cannot support abortion as a means of birth control, gender selection; nor can we tolerate the grisly procedure commonly known as “partial birth abortion.” RCRC hasn’t backed away. Under such conditions, how could any self-professing Christian support the intentional termination of life, so lovingly and carefully crafted by God? How arrogant to determine that some preborn life is of greater sacred worth to God than other preborn life.
As one of your outspoken Gay Facebook friends, I would have been a little impressed with the statements from this conference had I not read this:
Action of Non-Conformity with the General Conference of The United Methodist Church
The New England Annual Conference as a body affirms our commitment to a fully inclusive church. Therefore:
The NEAC will not conform or comply with provisions of the Discipline which discriminate against LGBTQIA persons, including marriage (161.B), the incompatibility clause (161.F), ordination and appointments (304.3), homosexual unions (341.6), AC funding ban (613.19), GCFA funding ban (806.9), chargeable offenses pertaining to being “a self avowed practicing homosexual” or to officiating at weddings for couples regardless of the sex of the partners (2702.1b,d).
The NEAC and its members will not participate in or conduct judicial procedures related to the Discipline’s prohibitions against LGBTQIA persons.
The NEAC insists that any benefits available to clergy and employees and their families are available to all clergy and employees and their families, regardless of the sexes or genders of the partners, and requires the District Superintendents to inform all clergy under their supervision of this right.
The NEAC will realign its funding to reflect these commitments, using no reserve funds to pay for judicial procedures related to the Discipline’s prohibitions against LGBTQIA persons, and instead request that the Connectional Table and Conference Council on Finance and Administration develop and fund programs of cultural competency, anti-racism, anti-ageism, anti-sexism, anti-oppression and anti-homophobia training at the conference and district levels, as well as for advocacy and implementation efforts related to the same.
—————————–
So that’s what’s possible. What’s the holdup? Haven’t there been enough “token actions”? Isn’t 40+ years of discussion enough?
Is there any spirituality at all in “corrosive factors of bureaucratic inertia and institutional malaise”? Or, is someone just blowing smoke …
While many of us have felt schism would happen at the denominational level with churches lining up on one side or the other, it seems now that a guideid transformation is indeed taking place with US conferences taking stances that reflect their ‘Christ-centered’ views on
While many of us have felt schism would happen at the denominational level with churches lining up on one side or the other, it seems now that a guideid transformation is indeed taking place with US conferences taking stances that reflect their ‘Christ-centered’ views on Faith & Practice..
Very similar to the process of nullification that was practiced by some states prior to our civil war. That worked out well.