Day 9 Feed

This blog tonight is a hard one for me to write, because this was a very long day that in many ways revolved around a very sensitive issue, human sexuality, specifically homosexuality. Though it only officially spent a couple hours on the floor of the conference, the topic has pervaded the entire atmosphere of the day.

This morning did not start with a discussion of homosexuality. In fact, it began with a fairly widely supported petition sent from the Global Young People's Convocation and Legislative Assembly in Berlin almost two years ago. I was there! This petition, which I believe I spoke about in a previous blog, is a non-disciplinary petition that urges committees, boards, and agencies to consider the schedules of young people when setting meetings. For instance, setting ameeting in the middle of a weekday is not conducive to participation by young people. The petition was amended by the young people of this conference to make the language stronger. It did pass, though there was some concern by international delegates that the school schedules in their countries are not the same as the ones here. It was important to them that preferential treatment not be given to young people in the US.

The next proposal was the beginning of the homosexuality/human sexuality debate. The discussion began at shortly before 9 AM surrounding a petition sent by the young people in Berlin. A substitution to this petition was proposed by some of the pastors of the largest UM churches in the US. Both petitions, in different lanuguage, basically stated two things. 1) We acknowledge that we disagree on the difficult issue of homosexuality. 2) We agree to disagree because at this time we cannot come to an agreement. This would mean that we can follow either path without repurcussions. The body chose to work on the original proposal, not the substitution.

There were several highlights to both sides of the debate that I will share with you. Most are paraphrases or summaries.
-This is silly because we disagree on almost everything, so why should this issue be treated differently.
-We have already passed a petition acknowledging we do not agree entirely on everything, and it is placed at the beginning of the social principles.
-There is too much pain caused by these words/statements/stances.
-It is important to speak the truth about all sin, not just this one, and our congregations understand this. They respect us when we speak truth about their sin.
-This is causing people to leave our church, because it is hateful language.
-Speaking truth, even in this, will call people to join the church, because they respect that. People do join the conservative churches.
-Many compare it to the act of reconcilliation and to our new full communion with traditionally African American denominations that left over racism.
-God would not create people in this way, and no more would God make a person to live with animals than he would create a person as homosexual...after this speech, the bishop reminded people to have a calm voice, not speak with inflamatory language, and not to call names...during the speech, somebody started to blow a whistle. The whistle was blown later also.
-Love and condoning actions of sin are not the same thing.
-We are all sinners, so why should this be treated differently?

As you can see, there were many passionate pleas on both sides. Some were appropriate and some were not. Many people sited statistics of growing churches, both conservative and liberal. Many people quoted the Bible.

From the beginning of the day, several people surrounded the bar of the conference and held out their hands, praying for the delegates. A man on the floor asked if our rules allow people to vote from any place in the bar. The bishop and secretary responded in the affirmative, and the man invited others to join him in standing by the curtains that are the bar of the conference, in order to stand with the demonstrators. As he said this, because he was out of order, the bishop spoke over him to cut him off. Some did move to those positions carrying their voting pads. A delegate asked if they could be asked to return to their seats, and the bishop ruled that they can vote from anywhere within the bar. Over time, many from the audience joined those praying at the curtain that represents the bar of the conference.

The petition, as many of you have heard, was defeated. As the recess was called immediately following the defeat, people flooded into the bar of the conference. The sang songs and gathered in the center. The celebrated Communion together. As the recess wound down, some even walked around and offered Communion to those who chose not to join them in the middle.

When the recess ended, the demonstrators chose to remain within the bar of the conference. Bishop Mike, the Indiana bishop, was presiding bishop at this time. He asked the "visitors" to leave the bar of the conference so we can conduct business. They chose to remain and they chose to sing over his speaking. He then explained that he would like to begin by using a song that his mother loved as the prayer. He asked that everybody respect the memory of his mother and listen quietly. As he read, "Surely the Presence of the Lord is in this place," the demonstrators chose to continue singing. He asked them again to leave or return to their seats (depending on if they are delegates or visitors). They chose to remain and continue singing. A speaker from Church and Society (if I remember correctly) asked everybody to take a white piece of paper. She asked us to wave them if we are loved by God, then if we are under 25, then if we are not white, then if we are not in a congregation that is primarily our race, then if we have children or grandchildren in their teens, then she explained that she has family or friends who are GBLT. While she spoke, the protesters continued to sing, though they did become somewhat quieter so she could be heard. After she finished, Bishop Mike asked again for them to leave or return to their seats. He explained that if they do not comply, then he will be forced to call the lunch recess and ask that only delegates be allowed back in after lunch. After perhaps 5-8 chances, Bishop Mike asked them one more time to leave or sit, and he ruled that we were in recess. He also ruled that only delegates will be allowed in the room after lunch. In the end, the protest cost about an hour and a half of discussion time that was to be devoted to homosexuality.

During lunch, the news eventually spread that the bishops decided that they would allow visitors in the room after lunch. Apparently, the protesters were told that they can either leave so business can continue or they can be arrested. Twitter stated that they chose to be arrested. Then, the bishops spent much time talking with them, trying to convince them to not let it go that far. I do not know what was said to them or what they said. I do know that when we returned from lunch a few things happened. 1) They were still in the center of the conference bar when I arrived. 2) The bishops made a statement acknowledging the hurting and pain. Prayer was said, and scripture was read. 3) They then filed out of the bar of the conference peacefully, quietly, and apparently willingly.

Even though, because of the scheduled calendar items we did not discuss homosexuality again in the legislative sessions, it still was a part of the entire day's proceedings. During the lunch break, as usual, I went to the Communion service. During a time of silent prayer, a person spokeabout how painful it is when the Communion service does not acknowledge what has just happened. She said that it was not acknowledged in the Communion service over the last few General Conferences either. In the evening, during the end of day worship, the bishop clearly spoke about the pain in her sermon. She said that something is wrong when certain people are not welcome to our table. Before the service begain, the worship leader explained that we are having a love feast because we need to come together in love, even though many have trouble seeing good or love right now in light of the denomination's decision.

There were a lot of strong feelings, harsh words, and feelings of hurt in the Conference center today, with people on both sides of the issue. We are divided as individuals in the United Methodist Church on this issue, and some of our bishops clearly end up on one side or the other. Today, the denomination has chosen to affirm the current stance. It is unlikely in my opinion, though I suppose it is possible, that this will come up again tomorrow. If it does, I expect we will again see protests. I know that the Westboro Baptist Church is planning to pay us a visit.

While this is perhaps a depressing note, I am going to end here, because adding more would seem inappropriate. I do want to affirm however, as was affirmed earlier today in worship, that God is good all the time!