General Conference – responding to the bishops

As I reported earlier today the bishops did issue a plan to resolve the intractable human sexuality debates, something delegates are now saying cannot be accomplished through legislation. The plan is to have a commission study every page of the Book of Discipline for language that is hurtful and contradictory then recommend changes. A special General Conference, hopefully in 2018 or 2019, would be convened to consider the recommendations.

But what to do until then?

One motion was to proceed with the bishop's recommendation, but also proceed with the human sexuality petitions that have come before this GC. Thankfully, this was defeated. I say that because some of those petitions would heap more harm.

Bishop Ough, which touched off this whole scenario said the support among the bishops was overwhelming, but not unanimous. Bishop Hagiya said that more traditional bishops were annoyed that while the commission worked there would be a moratorium on church trials and that would open the door to all kinds of violations.

That makes me wonder: Is he suggesting there aren't violations now?

The delegates voted by a wide margin to ask who has the authority to set ordination standards, General Conference or the local Annual Conference? That question was sent to the Judicial Council. The reason for the question is because several Annual Conferences have said they will ignore sexual orientation when determining whether a candidate is fit for ordination.

Another issue did go before the Judicial Council. There were petitions to require minimum penalties for chargeable offenses. These are the things that will put a pastor on trial. An example is officiating at a same-sex wedding. The petition wanted a mandatory suspension of a year without pay (since defrocking doesn't seem to be a thing anymore).

The Judicial Council ruled that a mandatory penalty cannot be imposed when a pastor voluntary admits the offense, and that includes when the admission is part of agreeing to a Just Resolution to avoid a trial. In addition, the annual conference has sole authority on matters related to the character of its clergy members. Transferring that authority to GC, by GC demanding a minimum penalty, is unconstitutional.

There will be no mandatory minimum penalties.

Relying on tweets for news gets interesting. I had left you hanging on the fate of the bishop's recommendation. The various streams of tweets (and the United Methodist news service) said that after lunch the plenary would take up such a motion written by Adan Hamilton (who is definitely an ally). But the news article stopped there. Later tweets say Hamilton's motion was defeated, yet another motion passed by 51%. I don't have a text for this motion. Along the way was a call for the presiding bishop to be removed from the chair. Alas, I have no details.

Many are encouraged by this action. Others worry that is is just another delaying tactic.

Being debated now is petition 60935, which creates a Central Conference in the United States. This is a critical issue because it allows the US churches to say there needs to be a national difference from the global Book of Discipline. And the top of the list of differences is in how we treat LGBT people.