Thursday, May 1, 2008
That was Helpful
I LOVE our bishops. Geesh, this Church is great. A fiteen-minute recess was just called for a moment of witness. Tons of GLBTQ supporters flooded the arena, shrouded in black. The communion table was shrouded and folks were invited to add black cloth on it. They sang "Were You There When They Crucified My Lord?" and bishops spoke out, telling us that they believe us to be broken and in the wrong. We have been invited by the bishops "to reconsider." We're in the middle of a calendar item, but I'm kind of waiting to see if someone moves to reconsider. Either way, the time was healing and I thank God that our bishops took action.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
was that the happening that took place after during the break and was not broadcast over the webstream? i tuned in when that was being mentioned.
way to step up and ask for prayer in a crucial time yesterday. that was needed, needed more of it, but a little was better than anything
Yep. Unfortunately, we were in "recess," and it is their procedure to to stop livestream during breaks. Depressing, true. But there it is. Sorry you all didn't get to see it...it was very powerful.
They are going to have the feed available online evidently....
Can someone really motion to reconsider?
Yes, someone could move to reconsider. It's beginning to look like it's not going to happen, but it's technically in order. Unlike the vote. We could also go on that platform. The question to be made is whether or not it will truly help or just cause more pain.
It might be that a motion to reconsider would be out of order, because it was rejected yesterday, right after the vote. In normal parliamentary procedure, a motion to reconsider would have to be made by someone who had voted with the prevailing side.
Wes Stanton
Pacific Northwest
A motion to reconsider has to be made by someone on the prevailing side, yes. The actual motion made was to suspend the rules so that the motioner could move to reconsider. So a motion to reconsider has not yet actually been made.
Out here in cyberspace it's difficult to judge how close the vote was, i.e. is really pretty polarized or are there a large number of "swing votes" of folks in the middle?
It's difficult to tell. Remember, we weren't allowed to debate the actual motion AT ALL. Amendments were moved and those were debated. Many people used the amendments to make speeches against all of homosexuality. GLBTG supporters, for the most part, did not speak at this time. I think we were all waiting, knowing that we would get our chance after the amendments and that our emotional speeches and rational arguments would be more persuasive and useful during the overall vote. But then we weren't allowed to make them at all...
The votes were almost all very close. One of them went down by only 10%.
The final vote adopting the minority report's changes to Par. 161 was 501-417. That's pretty close. And, yes, parliamentary fiddles, both intentional and unintentional, got in the way of a more complete process.
Wes Stanton
Pacific Northwest
Well that's about a 5% (45 vote) difference. I guess it just depends.
There has been a lot of hate-blogging by the pro-LGBT side today. That's not going to help sway the middle votes in the future...
That's true. I think that people on both sides of the issue need to be more careful about how they go about promoting their cause. Fighting intolerence with intolerance will not be helpful.
When we look at the closeness of the vote we need to remember that the vote was to change the UM stance on same-gender sex to a neutral stance. Some otherwise-conservative folks are coming around to such a position. They haven't changed their views, they just are more willing to allow that there are other views — for the sake of over-all unity.
Craig, here's what we passed:
"We affirm that sexuality is Gods good gift to all persons. We call everyone to responsible stewardship of this sacred gift.
Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relationships are affirmed only within the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
We deplore all forms of commercialization, abuse, and exploitation of sex. We call for strict global enforcement of laws prohibiting the sexual exploitation of children and for adequate protection, guidance, and counseling for abused children. All persons, regardless of age, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation, are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured and to be protected against violence. The Church should support the family in providing age-appropriate education regarding sexuality to children, youth and adults.
We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God. All persons need the ministry of the church in our struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationship with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that gods grace is available to all. We will live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and long one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons."
The sentence "The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching" does not sound very neutral to me. The recommendation of the legislative committee was in neutral language, and that is what we really hoped would pass.
It's not.
I'm sorry I was unclear. What was before the body is a change from the currently "conservative" position to a neutral position (in which we recognize that people have differing views). Some otherwise conservative folks feel the change to a neutral position would be helpful in fostering unity.
The body retained the conservative position by a rather slim margin.
Yup. And that was frustrating when the committee had worked so hard to come up with some very neutral language that I think most people really should be able to agree with, seeing as how most of the language was simple fact. (ie, We have differing views.)
Post a Comment