Plenary Session Proceedings
Monday, April 22: Morning Session
BISHOP WILLIAM GROVE: Let's be in order, please.
STEVE KIMBROUGH: As we gather, would you join me with two Native Americans, Mr. Kenneth Deere and Mr. Alvin Deer?
BISHOP GROVE: Let's be in order, please.
KIMBROUGH: We'd like for you to stand, and we're going to sing, "Heleluyam." You only have to join in two words: Heleluyam and Hele. These gentlemen will lead us. We ask that you stand and join us.
BISHOP GROVE: Thank you very much. Our thanks also to Bishop Jones for that message and to Bishop Swenson and the others who shared with them in our leadership of worship today. Our organist for this week is Kathleen Forsberg, who is organist at the Littleton United Methodist Church in Littleton, Colorado. Why don't you welcome her and thank the others? It's time now for our shared prayer and seeking of the sermon. I think that the two questions that we're asking will come onto the monitors, and we ask you again, as we have at the beginning of each session, to turn to someone near you and have a conversation for four or five minutes about those two questions: What is my desire for the next hours of these General Conference? and, What do I believe is God's desire? Then after the time, period of time has passed, I'll call you to pray together. Can we be in order and turn to our neighbors and have a brief conversation about those two questions?
BISHOP GROVE: All right, will you now pray together, asking for the discernment of God's will for the General Conference?
BISHOP GROVE: Now may we pray together using the "Collect For Purity of Heart," which I think you all know?
BISHOP GROVE: I recognize Charles Applebee at microphone 12 for a personal privilege, and I would ask John Thomas, the Commission on--chair of the Commission on the General Conference to be ready to respond to this request, which I believe is going to be made. Charles Applebee, at microphone 12. Would you indicate your conference?
CHARLIE APPLEBY (South Carolina): Thank you Bishop Grove. One way to avoid sending confusing signals during an election year could be to invite Elizabeth Dole to bring greetings to this great General Conference. Like Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Dole has been of lifelong Methodist roots. As president on leave of the American Red Cross, Mrs. Dole works with the poor, the hungry, the disaster victims, is certainly representative of the Methodism call to help the downtrodden and the oppressed. Bishop Grove, I move that the Commission on the Conference be asked to invite Mrs. Dole to address this great conference.
BISHOP GROVE: Is there a second? (second)
BISHOP GROVE: There is a second. Now, this request has been made first of the Commission--was referred to the Commission on the General Conference. So I would like to ask Mr. John Thomas to make a response if he wishes to do so. I think I see him going back to microphone 10. Eight. Microphone eight.
JOHN THOMAS: Bishop and members of the Conference, this issue has come before the Commission on General Conference on two occasions. On each occasion, after discussing the matter, the Commission, by a majority vote feels that to do so would be to inject perhaps more partisan politics into the matter than may there be there now. And each time the commission has, by majority vote, declined to invite Elizabeth Dole, even though they have recognized her great input into this great church of ours.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. Is there further discussion, anyone want to speak for the motion? I hope we can settle this quickly, but we can have--you're entitled to two speeches. One has been made on either side. Really entitled to three. Is there...? Back here. Is this a speech for? All right. I recognize you. Go to microphone seven.
CHARLES PEARCE (Florida): Four months after our last General Conference in Louisville, my home and ten acre line grove was destroyed by Hurricane Andrew. The UMCOR and the Red Cross was invaluable to 50 thousand people in the Homestead area. And your prayers and the millions of dollars that you sent to us in Homestead can never be fully appreciated. I want to thank, personally, each one today for this. But knowing what the Red Cross did under Elizabeth Dole's leadership can also never be fully appreciated. I would hope that this great, great conference would see fit to invite her as the president of the Red Cross at that time. Thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. Is there a speech against? Back here. Yes, I see a green card. No, the one on the aisle. There. Go to microphone nine.
RONALD BRETSCH (North Central New York): Thank you Bishop. As an enrolled Republican, but more as a United Methodist, I would like to remind the body those of us from the United States, we have one President at one time, and we have one First Lady at one time.
BISHOP GROVE: Thank you. Are you ready? I think you are. I don't see anyone. Vote when the light appears.
BISHOP GROVE: (results: yes 301, no 562, abstain 24) Thank you. The motion is defeated. We're ready now for the Consent Calendar. I recognize Fitzgerald Reist and Sara Miller.
FITZGERALD REIST: (Coordinator of the Calendar): I've been asked to explain and clarify for folks, again, a few items related to the Consent Calendars. First of all, let me say that there is a form available in the secretary's office for the General Conference in room C204 for the removal of items from the Consent Calendar. We must use that form because the material asking for removal comes to us sometimes without the information we need to identify the petition.
I had one note that came with five names on it, but no number of calendar or otherwise. So we need use the form. We would appreciate it if you would pick that up when you need to make a request for removal from Consent Calendar. Room C204.
The other thing that I want to say to you is that you do not need to remove from Consent Calendar items which are not on the Consent Calendar. (laughter) I know it is very confusing locating what Consent Calendar things are on because they're on pages following the heading, and sometimes it is confusing. But you do not need to request those items that are not on Consent Calendar to be removed. They may be discussed on the floor automatically.
The Consent Calendar that we will be considering today is...the Consent Calendars we will be considering today are A02, B02, and C02. We have had removed from Consent Calendar A02 by request of delegates the following items: Calendar Items 102, 103, 104, 133, 141, 145, 165, and 194. Before you panic, they're all spelled out on page 260 in the DCA.
SARA MILLER: Bishop Grove, Sara Miller.
BISHOP GROVE: Yes.
MILLER: I would move the adoption of the Consent Calendar A02, with the deletion of those items which have been named.
BISHOP GROVE: It would be good to give the page. The page is 129. The first page of the Consent Calendar A02. That motion is before you. Vote when the light appears. [773 approved] The motion is adopted. The Consent Calendar is approved with those deletions.
REIST: Consent Calendar B02 is found on page 142 of the DCA in your blue book. There are no changes to Consent Calendar B02.
MILLER: Bishop, I move the adoption of Consent Calendar B02.
BISHOP GROVE: That is before you. Vote when the light appears. [834 approved] Motion is supported. Consent Calendar B02 is approved.
REIST: Consent Calendar C02 is found in your DCA, and I apologize, I lost my bookmark. It is on page 155 of your DCA. Calendar Items 306 and 397 have been removed by the request of the delegates.
MILLER: Bishop, I move the adoption of Consent Calendar C02, with the deletions noted.
BISHOP GROVE: Please vote when the light appears. [854 approved] That Consent Calendar, C02, is approved.
MILLER: I have one additional item for the Agenda and Calendar Committee. This afternoon at 3:30 there will be a five minute presentation by Cheetah Framol of the Philippines who is president of International Diaconia.
BISHOP GROVE: That's placed on the agenda for 3:30 this afternoon. Thank you. Ready now for the Native American Ministries report. I'm not sure who's to give that, but if those persons who are presenting that report will come now, we are ready to receive it.
SAMUEL WYNN: Bishop, delegates. This morning, the drumming group who is with us is from the Blackfeet Reservation, and they would ask for your prayers for a grandmother who has passed away, Ms. Alice Samoa. And she has been taken back to Great Falls this morning. Let us stand together for the Blackfeet Tribal Flag Song.
WYNN: You may be seated. Bishop, delegates, and to all the saints called United Methodists who have traveled from the four corners of the earth, gathered together as laity and clergy, grace and peace to you from God our Creator, and the Lord of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
The 1992 General Conference passed the Native American Comprehensive Plan, and its passage was a historic event for The United Methodist Church. Four years later, it gives us great joy and pleasure to share with you what has been accomplished since that time. The plan is found in Volume Two of the Advanced DCA on pages 1342 through 1354.
The delegation of the responsibility for carrying out its directions was given to the General Board of Global Ministries. A task force was established with two Native Americans from the Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference, the Native American International Caucus, one Native American person from the Alaskan Missionary Conference, and one director and one staff person from each of the four general boards and agencies. The task force was organized, and it met in Syracuse, New York; the Blackfeet Reservation in Browning, Montana; Schurz, Nevada; Dulac, Louisiana; and the Seminole Reservation in Morehaven, Florida.
The purpose of these meetings were twofold. Number one, to fulfill the responsibilities assigned to the task force by the 1992 General Conference. Two, to provide opportunity for Native Americans within their own community to share their struggles, hopes, and dreams about the future. As a result of our time of listening, the task force was encouraged and strengthened by the witness of their faith in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Our stories of faith today are similar to the faith stories of the Wyandots who introduced Methodism to parts of the Midwest. Let me share a small part of the Wyandots' faith story.
In Zanesville, Ohio, on September 5, 1824, an unidentified Wyandot tribesman gave his personal testimony and spoke of the spiritual benefits of the Christian faith. As Christ had brought power of salvation not only to one man but also to a whole community of people, this tribesman stated, "Our eyes never melted unto tears while worshipping until we heard the name of Jesus Christ."
This story reminds us of the apostle Paul in his letter to the church to Ephesus when he said, "I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and your love toward all the saints."
We continue to fill gaps and to build bridges upon the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through the four directions that is set forth in the Native American Comprehensive Plan. They are: denominational presence, Native American spirituality, congregational development, and leadership development.
MARV ABRAMS: The Comprehensive Plan is one that has been an exciting program. I have coordinated that for the task force. And as we met in Montana, we began to talk about these four directions. And from that we put together a logo. And I want you to think about it with me.
Think of a circle. Think of the four directions of that circle. The circle is not one that is a closed circle; it is a broken circle, signifying that is not just for native people, but it is for all of God's people. There are four directions to our plan. The circle, of course, is a very powerful symbol among Native Americans. When there is peace, wholeness, and harmony, Native Americans view the circle as in balance. There is a balance to life. There is a balance to our world.
The four directions: the East, the South, the West, and the North, symbolize new life, healing, traditional values, and power. Some Native Americans in the United Methodist Church, using John Wesley's quadrilateral, would assign scripture, experience, tradition, and reason to these four directions. In the logo that I'm describing, we have some buttons, and we will be passing these out later in the week, there are two things that you will notice about the logo. One, as I said, that it is not a closed circle. Second, that there is a cross that is formed at the intersection of the lines drawn through each of these cardinal points. Native Americans within the United Methodist Church believe that only through the cross of Jesus Christ can balance, wholeness, peace, harmony, and salvation be achieved. And you will note, when you see the logo, that there are half arrows that are parallel each arm of the cross. They symbolize the work of the Holy Spirit, which has guided the Native American Comprehensive Plan task force as it developed its work, this report, and the recommendations that you see before you.
Against a backdrop of need and opportunity, the four committees of the Native American Comprehensive Plan, use the four directions contained in the circle as a guide for their work. The remainder of this report will be given by the chairs and by witnesses of the accomplishments of these committees. The North, symbolizing powers associated with denominational presence. The denominational presence committee is chaired by Ann Saunkeah. The witnesses will be Bob Mangum and Betty Admussen.
The West, symbolizing religious heritage, is associated with Native American spirituality. The Native American Spirituality Committee is chaired by Anne Marshall. The witness will be Joe Parker.
The South, symbolizing healing winds, is associated with congregational development. The Congregational Development Committee is chaired by Billie Nowabbi. The witness will be Shirley Montoya.
The East, symbolizing new life, is associated with leadership development. The Leadership Development Committee is chaired by Cynthia Abrams, and the witness will be Alvin Deer.
If you will turn to page 1353, you will see many of the plans and the programs of these committees.
ANN SAUNKEAH: The Denominational Presence Committee is developing structures that will help annual conference keep the doors of communication open between Native American ministries, rural communities, and the United Methodist Church. We have encouraged the Church's program boards and agencies to develop or maintain advisory committees or linkage groups. These committees or groups will be the voice of Native American needs at the general church level. They will also help the boards and agencies be sensitive to Native American culture in program development.
The committee has made available training for five jurisdictional consultants, who, in turn, help annual conferences establish and train their committees on Native American ministry, as mandated by paragraph 748 of the Book of Discipline. We will now hear from two of the jurisdictional consultants.
BOB MANGUM: I work with SEJANAM, the Southeastern Jurisdictional Agency for Native American Ministries. I am also a jurisdictional consultant, working with annual conferences, helping them to create, organize, and train committees on Native American ministry. We held an initial training session for conference committees in 1994 to train leadership of those committees. Since then, we have provided training for committees at conference sites, to help empower these committees to function effectively.
In one conference, the Native American Committee prints a newsletter to help create greater awareness of Native American issues in that conference, and also to promote Native American Awareness Sunday. In another conference, the Native American Committee has established a Simeon F. Cummings Endowment Fund for Native American ministries, to help create a funding for ministries in the Southeast. In another conference, the committee is working to identify Native Americans in a large municipal area, and then to create a ministry of presence. In the Southeast, the comprehensive plan is helping create a Native American Advocate Ministry Group in each of the annual conferences. Existing ministries are being strengthened, and new congregations and ministries are being formed.
BETTY ADMUSSEN (Missouri-West): I am one of the five jurisdictional consultants, and I work with the South Central Jurisdiction. We are working with all of the annual conferences to assist them in getting the Native American committees established. What a wonderful venture this has been for me! You see, there are 582,000 Native Americans in the South Central Jurisdiction. And many of them have been invisible to our United Methodist communities. Statistics tell us that 69 percent of the total Native American populations live in the urban areas, and you have become aware of the pockets of the communities you didn't even know existed. I have heard your stories of how you are working with the Native American monies to invite our brothers and sisters to the table. Scholarships have been made available for schooling, camps have been established for youth, and internships have been available for young adults who are interested in learning more about the ministry of this great church.
In the South Central Jurisdiction, a training session has been planned for the first week in August, using the Southeastern Jurisdiction's Native American Ministry as a model. The other three jurisdictions will also have training sessions in the fall. We are here today to say "thank you" for allowing space at the table.
ANNE MARSHALL: Native Americans are spiritual people, and our very being has spiritual significance. The goal of the Native Americans Spirituality Committee is to help Native American United Methodists and the general church develop respect for spiritual values, our practices, and symbols of native people, which will bridge understandings among us. A survey instrument was developed and tested in various Native American settings and communities. In addition to the survey, information gathered from dialogues based on spirituality will be used during the 1997 to the year 2000 quadrennium, to develop curriculum, resources and a mission statement sensitive to Native American culture for the local churches, annual conferences, and seminaries.
JOE PARKER: The West, in Native American spirituality, relates to the association of the Native Americans. Native Americans understand that everything spiritual, everything has spiritual significance. The goals of the Native American Spirituality Committee is to help Native American United Methodists and the United Methodist Church develop a respect and understanding of the spiritual values, practices, and symbols of native people.
When I was six years old, in New England, the Native Americans, most of them, were assimilated into the communities, and at the age of six I was taken away from my family with my brothers, and put into an orphanage. This was during the Depression, 'cause we know the government knows best how to take care of people, and subsequently, they placed me with an Irish family, who was, I'd say religious people, but through my prayer life, the Creator did instill in me a total respect for all of life, which we believe that Native American spirituality is. So my work on the task force, a brother on the task force shared with me that when he was growing up on the reservation, that his grandmother, who was a long-time Methodist, and teachings for the long houses, he thought that some of the things being taught seemed to him to be pagan. But after seminary, and then returning to the reservation, to share in a ministry, that these same lessons that were coming from the long house, to him, seemed biblical. It is this Native American spirituality that has helped native people to survive. Aho!
BILLIE NOWABBI: The congregational committee is developing models of ministry that can be established, revitalized, and strengthened within Native American rural and reservation communities. These models will: 1) be culturally sensitive to Native American ways of life; 2) be developed in partnership with United Methodist program agencies and Native American entities and; 3) utilize existing resources available in the United Methodist Church.
We offer four models of ministry:
SHIRLEY MONTOYA: Serving as the Western Jurisdiction for the Native American Comprehensive Plan, I have seen a vision and a dream become a reality. Through seed money from the Native American Comprehensive Plan and strong commitment and support of the Desert Southwest Annual Conference, the Northern Arizona Native American Ministry has become a reality. This ministry will provide a United Methodist presence among the largest concentration of Native Americans in the annual conference. The majority of these Native Americans are the Denai People, the Navajos. The Native American Comprehensive Plan's four directions will provide the base from which this ministry will be developed to meet the needs and address the issues of the Native Americans in this area.
The vision of this ministry is to empower people; a ministry of affirmation through the liberating gospels of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Only in this way can we, as a people, begin to combat poverty, homelessness, alcoholism, violence.
The ministry will have three phases: First, to assess and focus on the crucial needs and concerns of the people. Second, to formulate and develop clusters, utilizing the gatherers concept, to identify leadership. And third, the beginning development of our congregation, identifying leadership.
This is God's plan. This is God's timing. Your prayers and your support is greatly needed for the long life and success of this ministry.
CYNTHIA ABRAMS: One Native American leader recounted his experience at the 1960 General Conference by saying he was a dark spot in a sea of white faces. The leadership development committee recognizes that for Native American people to truly be a part of the church, we need to be involved in all levels of the church. We need to be at the table.
An example of this quadrennium's work was a continuing education training event in 1995 for pastors and other church workers at the National Native American Family Camp. Along with the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, we are exploring a course of study designed to be sensitive to Native American leaders and their unique situations. The plan has enabled and will continue to enable Native Americans to be effective leaders in the church and in their communities.
As we look toward the twenty-first century, we are calling on the church to be in partnership with Native American people. As we continue to develop new, innovative, creative, and vital ministries, like the reservation chaplaincy, that will help deal with economic development, alternatives to gaming. We want to be a part of the circle that includes the whole church, as we continue to develop and implement creative leadership models for this great denomination.
ALVIN DEER (Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference): Leadership development means training events such as Event '95, whose goal was to introduce local church leaders from the Native American communities to the United Methodist structure and polity, for application at the local, district, annual conference, jurisdictional, and general conference levels. Nearly 100 persons participated and were given the opportunity to attend workshops led by Native Americans. One participant stated, "I never realized what a great church we have, and I want to be more involved." Another person said, "This event has far-reaching ramifications which shall continue to influence our mission of ministry in the Native American community."
Leadership development also means salary parity for Native American pastors. Pastors in the Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference are as committed to the ministry of Jesus Christ as any in the denomination. Many of our pastors commit to full-time ministry knowing that the entry level of a full-time pastor in the OIMC is $12,000 per year. The 1996 conference average compensation of our Native American pastors is 52 percent less than the denominational average compensation.
At this General Conference, great attention has been given to the impact of local church obligations. General apportionments rise. Conference benevolences rise. Local church expenses rise. The very necessary missional needs rise. And pastoral salaries rise. In many Native American churches, it is not possible to meet all the obligations of the local church and pay salaries comparable to the denominational average compensation.
The Native American Comprehensive Plan has recognized that in order for many Native Americans to answer the call to ministry, that they have bound themselves to the minimum salary levels of the annual conference. The plan has embarked on a process to study salary parity for Native American pastors in order for Native Americans to answer the call, and then not be burdened by poverty-level compensation. Through the Native American Comprehensive Plan, we will find a means to parity in Native American compensation.
KENNETH DEERE: As Native Americans are representing our own sovereign nation here, we ask that you join us in the song that you just learned earlier: "Heleluyam!" by standing, and I'm going to ask my elder, George Miller, to lead us in that song. Will you stand, please?
SAM WYNN (North Carolina Conference): You may be seated. Now that you have heard about the accomplishments, the impact, and the necessity for this plan, you have the opportunity to join as partners with Native Americans throughout North America in the continuation of this exciting ministry. Here are several of the findings that the task force would encourage you to remember. That over 60 percent of all Native Americans live in metropolitan areas. The Native American population has increased 39 percent between 1980 and 1990. Just under one-half of those older than the age of 25 living on reservations are high school drop-outs. One third of Native Americans, including Eskimo and Aleut, in the United States live below the poverty level. Among Native American teenagers, the suicide rate is four times higher than of any other ethnic group in the United States. Native Americans are four times more likely to die of alcoholism than any other group in the United States. The fetal alcohol syndrome is six times higher than the national average.
The next General Conference, when we meet together, will be the beginning of a new millennium. The decisions that you make today will impact the future of our denomination. The Native American community will be affected by this decision and as well as others throughout our church. It is the purpose of the Native American Comprehensive Plan to share the gospel of Christ from the four directions of the Native American Plan, thus giving our children hope for a brighter future.
The faith that the Wyandots expressed in Zanesville, Ohio, on September 24, 1824, brought about salvation and spiritual benefit not only to one man but to a whole community. Likewise, this same faith has watered the desolate places within the hearts of Native American people today within The United Methodist Church, replacing despondency, loss of hope, poverty, and brokenness with new hope, new dreams, and new life.
In the Book of Ezekiel in chapter 37, verses 9 and 10, God reveals to Ezekiel in this vision the state of a nation that is dry, that is desolate, that has little or no life. However, he brings a vision of restoration and new life, and he says, "Then He said to me, Prophesy and breathe. Prophesy, mortal, and say to breath: Thus saith the Lord God: Come from the four winds, oh breath and breathe upon the slain that they may live.' I prophesied as I was commanded, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and they stood on their feet as a vast multitude."
We, as Native Americans, can relate to Ezekiel's vision. The dry bones are symbols of our past and present oppressions, some of which have been mentioned here today. But we press forward. We continue to strive for a better way of life for our children and for our children's children. God through his Son, has breathed new life into our spirit. And like the Wyandots, we, too, have received God's benefits through the saving power of Jesus Christ. Our eyes melted into tears as well, but our tears are also tears of hope, joy, and love because of the impact of this Plan in our community.
We want to say thank you for what you have done, and thank you to the Native American Fax Network, and the support that we have received from United Methodist Communications and the other four program boards and agencies, the General Council on Ministry throughout The United Methodist Church. Now may God's peace abide with each of you always; the love and the faith of Jesus Christ continue to strengthen you.
BISHOP GROVE: Thank you very much Sam Wynn and Marvin Abrams and all the others who have brought this report to us. We are very grateful to you. I think we are ready now for calendar items related to this report, and I recognize Carolyn Johnson, chair of the Legislative Committee on Global Ministries.
CAROLYN JOHNSON: Good morning, Bishop and delegates. Well, there was one person out there who said good morning back. Thank you. This morning, on behalf of legislative group number six, Global Ministries, we'll be bringing to you four calendar items. All of the calendar items are found in your blue DCA on page 174.
We will be looking at calendar items beginning with Calendar Item 444. The reference material that you will need for that is found in your Advance DCA book one, the red book, on page 778. As you're turning to that page, it might help you to know that that item is in the lower left hand column. This first item, continuation of the Native American Comprehensive Plan, the petition number is 21345. As the legislative group reviewed the petition, the recommendation was concurrence: 108 for, 0 against, and 0 not voting. And therefore, because of the financial implications, our recommendation is concurrence, with reference to GCF&A. And I so move, Bishop.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. Will you vote when the light appears. [880 approved]
BISHOP: That is affirmed. Approved, with reference to Finance for the financial implications.
JOHNSON: Thank you. The next item, and you'll notice we are going in descending order, is Calendar Item 443, also on page 174. This item and the one that will follow it relate to the National Plan for Hispanic Ministries. The reference material you will need is found in the Advance DCA book one, that's the red book, on page 762. And again, as you are going to that page, it might be helpful for you to know that it's in the lower portion of the right hand column. This is petition number 20078. This petition is to continue the emphasis on the National Plan for Hispanic Ministries. The legislative group reviewed it and recommended concurrence on a vote of 104 for, 0 against, and 0 not voting. Again, because of the financial implications, our recommendation to you is concurrence, with reference to GCF&A, and I so move.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, it is before you. Anyone want to speak to it? I think you're ready. Vote when the light appears. [908 approved]
BISHOP GROVE: It is approved, with reference to Finance.
JOHNSON: Thank you. The next Calendar Item 442, again on page 174. This recommendation is on the National Plan for Hispanic Ministries. The reference material in the Advance DCA book one, the red book, is on page 771 at the bottom of the right hand column. Petition number 21343. The recommendation from the legislative group on a vote of 107 for, 0 against, and 1 not voting, was concurrence, with reference to GCF&A, and I so move.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. Anyone wish to speak to it? Vote when the light appears. [922 approved]
BISHOP GROVE: It is approved, with reference.
JOHNSON: Thank you, and the final item that we will bring to you today is Calendar Item 441 on Asian-American Language Ministry Study. The Advance DCA reference is Advance DCA, book one, the red book, page 777. You will find this in the lower portion of the left hand column. It's petition number 21344. On a vote of 107 for, 0 against, and 1 not voting, the legislative group recommends concurrence, with reference to GCF&A, and I so move.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. Anyone wish the floor? Yes. I see a hand over here. Go to microphone six.
BARBARA WILLIAMS RIDDLE (Florida Conference): A question. The ones--the items that are being brought before us today that are being referred to GCF&A are not currently in the proposed budget that has gone out to us, and these are being referred, and these will be in addition? I want to make sure I understand.
JOHNSON: As I understand it, the rules of the General Conference require that any items that have financial implications, whether they are in an existing budget, whether they are continuation, or whether they will be a new program, must be referred back to GCF&A who handles those on site and are required to report back to this session of the General Conference. Is that correct, Bishop?
BISHOP GROVE: That is correct, and my understanding is that these amounts are in the proposed budget, but it still has to go to GCF&A. Is that right? Is that your understanding? Yes.
RIDDLE: So for clarification, everything that we're considering at this point has been and is considered in the proposed budget that will be before us later in the week?
JOHNSON: The items that I brought you today, yes.
RIDDLE: Thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. Are you ready? Vote when the light appears. [919 approved]
BISHOP GROVE: The motion is passed. The proposal is approved, with reference.
JOHNSON: Bishop, may I introduce to the house the other members of the legislative team who will also be coming to you later on in the week? Howard Daughenbaugh, vice chair, who's a clergy delegate from Central Illinois; and Betty Suzuki, who is our secretary and lay delegate from California-Nevada. Thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: Thank you very much. (applause) And thanks again to all of those who presented the Native American Plan to us today. We're within five minutes of recess, and I think we're going to take it now rather than going to the next legislative committee, rather than to break into their work. So we're in recess for 15 minutes. Please be in your seat ready to begin at 25 minutes after ten.
BISHOP GROVE: Come back as quickly now as you can. We have a lot of work to do this morning. All right, let's be in order, please. Please, friends, we need to begin. We have two items of personal privilege that I want to recognize, and I know that you want to be here for that.
Will the delegates be seated? We're going to begin. If you're at the cookie tables, please, if you're a delegate, please return. We're way past our starting time, and you don't seem to be moving this way. I recognize the delegate at microphone three for special privilege. Let's be in order, please.
PATRICIA FARRIS (California-Pacific): I invite the sisters and brothers of the General Conference to be in prayer and thanksgiving for the life and the ministry of the Rev. Tim Tyner from our annual conference, who died last night, after a long journey with AIDS. As we're in prayer, I'd like to lift up the refrain of one of Tim's favorite hymns: "I will cling to the old rugged cross, till my burdens at last I lay down. I will cherish the old rugged cross, and exchange it one day for a crown." Let us be in silent prayer together.
BISHOP GROVE: Can we be in silence as we remember this brother?
PATRICIA FARRIS (California-Pacific): Hear our prayer, O God, and give us your peace. Amen.
BISHOP GROVE: Amen. Another matter of concern: A delegate has asked me if I would just ask you without recognizing him, if we could send a greeting to the mayor of Ft. Smith, Arkansas. That community has been devastated by a hurricane. The mayor is a United Methodist. As we hold the people of that community in our prayers, is it in accord with your will that we send greetings to the community in a correspondence to the mayor? Unless there is objection, we will do that by common consent. I see no objection; it is done.
Another person asked for a moment of privilege relative to a letter to be sent down here. I don't see him. Microphone seven.
AUSTIN FREDERICK JR. (Southwest Texas): I move that the 1996 General Conference send a letter affirming Elizabeth Dole's church membership and exemplary service on behalf of the church and the Red Cross. If I may have a second, I would like to speak to that.
BISHOP GROVE: Is there a second? It is seconded.
FREDERICK: Bishop, while I was at my seat, visions of the Denver Post headlines reading "the 1996 General Conference voted not to hear Elizabeth Dole" came in my head, and I think that we could do this, in allowing, in expressing our deep appreciation for her work.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, it's before you. I don't think this is a matter of courtesy. Is there objection? If there is not, we'll do it by common consent.
Any objection? I see no card. It is approved by common consent. A letter of greeting and good wishes and appreciation will be sent on behalf of the General Conference to Elizabeth Dole, a faithful United Methodist. Thank you.
Ready now to recognize Paul Ervin, Chair of the legislative committee on Discipleship.
PAUL R.ERVIN JR. (North Georgia): Thank you, Bishop Grove. First, I would like to introduce the committee's secretary and vice-chair, if they would stand: Susan Hassinger, from the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference is our vice-chair, and Martha Etter from the Southwest Texas Conference is our secretary.
Please turn to page 227 in your red book. While you're doing that, I'm going to need request permission of the body, Bishop, to allow Dr. Gayle Felton, of Duke Divinity School, and Dr. Dale Dunlap to speak to the body on behalf of the study. Bishop? I need to request Dr. Felton, Dr. Gayle Felton, and Dr. Dale Dunlap to be able to address on this particular study.
BISHOP: Members of the Baptismal Study Committee?
ERVIN: Yes, sir.
BISHOP: Is there objection to voice for these two particular persons who served on the committee? I see none. Permission is granted.
ERVIN: Thank you. Today I hope we will celebrate the approval of a significant and important document in the life of our church. I know many of you may have attended earlier conferences, where our doctrinal statements and theological tasks were adopted. Last Saturday, by your approving the Consent Calendar Items 26 and 27, you approved the report of the Baptism Study Committtee entitled, By Water and the Spirit, a United Methodist understanding of baptism. After a day of review and explanation of the document, the Discipleship legislative committee passed, 100-0, approval of this paper, with only one amendment. I wish to commend the study committtee that has spent so much time and has been so patient over the last eight years to come to today.
At this time, I would like to introduce the chair of the study committee, to introduce any of the committee members he wishes to introduce, and those who will be assisting in the report to this General Conference. Following the report, we will have two legislative petitions, and there will be others throughout the week to come before this body related to the baptism study that will require additional conference action.
At this time, I would like to introduce Mark Trotter, clergy member of the California-Pacific Conference, and chair of the Baptism Study Committee. Mark.
MARK TROTTER (California-Pacific): Bishop, and members of the General Conference. The General Conference in 1984, adopted new rituals for the Church. Typical of United Methodist interests in things sacramental, at least in those days, no one seemed to notice what happened except the church's curriculum writers, who realized that the 1984 baptism ritual had signficantly changed the way we think about baptism.
The General Board of Discipleship, therefore, petitioned the 1988 General Conference to establish a committee to study the United Methodist understanding of baptism and its relation to confirmation and other rites of the church. The delegates to the 1988 General Conference also received the proposed hymnal that year. And when they opened it, they discovered that the 1984 rituals for Holy Communion and Holy Baptism were not at the back of the hymnal, where they're supposed to be, but in the front. It's referred to as "in your face editing." And the result was to cause an awareness of baptism, the likes of which has not been present in the church for over 100 years.
A committee was formed with representatives from three agencies: the General Board of Discipleship, the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, the General Commission on Church Unity and Interreligious Concerns, plus theologians from the differing theological points of view, and others to make up the inclusiveness of the committee. We began meeting in 1989, working with drafts that were prepared for each meeting, held in different regions of the country, so that we could talk with both laity and clergy who had been sent the latest draft of the document, and met with us for a session to share with us their opinions of it.
By 1992, we felt we had a pretty good document, but we still did not have consensus on some knotty problems. And so we submitted our work to that 1992 General Conference under the title, By Water and the Spirit, and asked that it be sent to the connection as a whole, along with a study guide and a response questionnaire, to be returned to the committee by fall of 1995. I understand that 20,000 copies of the study guide were sold by the beginning of 1995. The committee received 1,200 responses, which we read, discussed, and used to sharpen and focus a final draft, which was sent to all of you along with our proposed legislation.
We have now completed our assignment and placed it in your hands. But I feel that we have accomplished much more. The baptismal study has served as a catalyst for denomination-wide discussion of who we are as Christians. Although we were not responsible for the new baptism ritual, a great number of the questions directed to us have been questions about elements in the ritual. And the questions about the ritual correspond to the issues at the heart of Christian identity, beginning with the renunciations. The question arose immediately, why do we have to use such primitive language, such as renouncing evils powers of this world? Why do we pray that the infants be washed of sin? Have we not gone beyond such pre-scientific ways of discussing human nature, especially in little children? Why do we say baptism is initiation into the church? Why the prayer over the water with its rehearsal of the history of salvation? Why the laying on of hands in the act of confirmation? Why not postpone baptism until the individual can decide for himself or herself? Why not re-baptize? The church that seeks the answers to these questions has returned to the source, to one of the wells from which we draw the waters of renewal.
The study has also proved to be a resource for the renewal of ministry for many pastors, which has been another gratifying byproduct of the study. I offer my own testimony as an example. Before I took this assignment eight years ago, I was a typical United Methodist pastor, which meant baptism was something I rarely ever thought about. It was something that I did for families, and I treated baptism in that way in the worship, as a distraction. I got 'em in, got 'em done, and then got 'em out. And when I was appointed to serve on this committee, I thought I'd better try the new ritual, in case somebody who knew my position should stumble into worship some day. So I did. And the result has been a transformation of my understanding of my ministry, a transformation of the life of my congregation, and my own personal life.
Baptism is no longer seen as a service that we perform for families, but as the initiating sacrament of the church, to be celebrated in the worship of the church, not only as the initiation of new members, but through its rehearsal of who we are. It's an opportunity for God to renew us as individuals, and as the church.
And finally, the committee's work has demonstrated that it is possible for us to discuss an issue on which there are sharp divisions of opinion and find common ground. We do not think it is presumptuous to suggest that the committee's work is an example of how Christians from differing points of view can find unity. The committee's life together was a practical application of the theme of this conference, "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, charity." It was no picnic, but we did it. And as a result we received criticism from both sides of the theological scrimmage. But we receive encouragement also from the old story about the field commander who said, when his troops said that they felt that he was moving too fast, and his general said that he was moving too slow, he figured he was at the right place. And when criticism came equally from both sides, we figured that our work was done, and we stopped.
There are statements here in this document that some will feel to be compromises. And they are right, but we believe they are appropriate and defensible, given our task to find common ground on which all of us can stand as United Methodists in thinking about baptism.
We propose that By Water and the Spirit, the United Methodists' Understanding of Baptism is a foundation document for discussing our unity. The names of those who have served on the committee are listed at the conclusion of the report on page 235. I want to name them as a way of thanking them for their contribution. Some of them we've managed to get here on the stage, others are in the room someplace, and others are not able to be here at this conference. Dan Benedict, Oley Borgen, Sang E. Chun, Dale Dunlap, John Ewing, Gayle Felton, John Gooch, Sharon Hels, Pat Jelinek, Chuck Kishbaugh, Tom Langford, Jean Audrey Powers, Thomas Salsgiver, Stanley Washington, and Garnet Wilder.
There are two that I want to thank especially. First Peggy Sewall, who was the secretary for the committee for all these eight years, and made sense out of what must have seemed at times, a babel of tongues, and consistently and quietly contributed wisdom and grace to our proceedings. She was a gift to this committee.
And Dale Dunlap, who did the hard work of writing the many drafts of the paper during the committee's formative days in the first quadrennium. I don't know if you can appreciate what it is to spend hours and hours writing something and then submit it to 15 people who then begin to tear it apart. There must be a circle in hell where that is the punishment.
For four years, through at least four drafts, this brilliant, faithful, and gracious man, served his church, as he has done so many times over the years. We are most grateful for Dale Dunlap's contribution to our committee.
It is now my pleasure to introduce to you, Gayle Felton. Gail teaches at Duke Divinity School. She's made valuable contributions to the work of this committee, and as many of you know, she's been a kind of ambassador for the committee, introducing By Water and the Spirit on scores of occasions to both clergy and laity, and giving them at the same time, an invaluable education in Methodist history and sacramental theology. She will now give you a brief tour through By Water and the Spirit.
GAYLE FELTON: Good morning! Several years ago, I read in Christianity Today magazine, a kind of mythical account of a softball game. The softball game was being played between a wide range of persons of various denominations. And without going into the details that developed as that story was told, I was simply struck by a characterization in it, this story being written by a Presbyterian, and his comment at one point was, "Oh we love to play softball with the United Methodists. They don't care what the rules are." I've been struck by that, and have remembered it since, because I fear that this has often been the stereotype of Methodism that has come to us from other denominations, and indeed, the stereotype of United Methodism that has sometimes existed even within our own denomination.
Do United Methodists believe anything? Or do we make the appeal that we're sometimes accused of making, "Come on and be a United Methodist, you don't have to believe nothing." I don't believe this is the position we want our church to be in. I don't believe that it is the position that we are in. This, to me, has been one of the great values of the work that we have done on the Baptism Study. It is, I believe, the great value of this document to the church, as it serves us henceforth, as a guide, as a source, as a touchstone. For not only our understanding of the sacrament, but more broadly, our understanding of theology.
For baptism cannot really be limited to a particular ceremonial act conducted by a minister on a Sunday morning involving one child or adult. In talking about the meaning of baptism, we are talking about our understanding of who God is, of who we are in relationship to God, we are talking about how the brokenness of our relationship with God, with each other, with the natural world, and indeed even with our own best selves; how that brokenness, how that alienation can be overcome. What God has done to make it possible for us to come into saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ. We are talking when we think about baptism as well, about the meaning of the church, and what it is that the church has to do with our relationship with God. Why is it that God has given us the church, and within the church, the sacraments, referred to as "means of grace,"--ways that God's grace comes to us and is active and transformative in our lives?
As you look at the baptism document, By Water and the Spirit, as it is printed in your copy volume one of the DCA, beginning on page 227. I'm certainly not going to read the document, or even to summarize it, but I do want us to look together for a few moments, at the overall plan or layout of the document, and some of the foundational thinking that, it seems to me, undergirds the whole thing.
The first page, and indeed continuing over into the second page of the document, is really a very condensed historical, theological survey of the United Methodist tradition. United Methodism is a mediating tradition. It is a church in which, I believe, some of the best elements of the Christian faith, as they are exemplified in a variety of other denominations, are brought together, are combined, are synthesized, to make up what we as United Methodists believe. This, indeed, is in line with our heritage. A part of the recovery of United Methodism today and in the future, I believe, will be our recovery of the significance of our heritage. It is in knowing how we got to this place, that we will be able to examine the realities of the life of our Church today, and work toward a revitalization of our ministry in the world tomorrow.
So, in this document, as indeed as in our baptismal rituals, we are looking back to the classical Christian tradition in which we stand. And we are looking back specifically to the Wesleyan tradition that we have inherited from our founders. When we look at the Wesleyan tradition, we must remind ourselves that John Wesley was an Anglican priest, not just an Anglican priest until he became a Methodist, but indeed an Anglican priest all of his life. He had no desire to leave the Anglican Church, he only wished to rekindle the flame of God's spirit burning within it. And so, Wesley is not just an Anglican priest, but he is also a Methodist revivalist, a fervent evangelical, preaching the necessity of a personal experience of rebirth, in commitment and discipleship to Jesus Christ.
Now these are two aspects of Christian theology, that we often believe are separate. And indeed, that we sometimes believe are actually opposing and contradictory to each other.
GAYLE FELTON: We have a tendency to split off what we consider the evangelical, revivalistic view of faith from what we consider the sacramental, ecclesiastical understanding. But in truth, this is not an option for United Methodists. Such a split is not an option for us if we are going to be authentic to our heritage, if we are going to proclaim the version of the gospel, if you will, that God raised up the United Methodists to proclaim. For John Wesley was able to create a synthesis, a blend or combination of the high Anglican, ecclesiastical, sacramental side of his belief, with the fervant, revivalistic, evangelicalism that he proclaimed actively in the many decades of his ministry.
This synthesis, this belief that God works through the church, and through the sacraments of the church, in a very powerful and special way. And yet, at the same time, God expects, indeed requires, each individual to come into saving relationship with God through trusting surrender and commitment to Christ.
Wesley holds those wholes of the faith together. And neither one alone is Wesleyan. Neither one alone is authentic United Methodism. Mediating positions, synthesis positions, are difficult to maintain. It is much easier to go to extremes on issues than it is to see the truth of all sides and hold those together. And unfortunately, for us contemporary United Methodists, John Wesley's creative synthesis of sacramentalism and evangelicalism did not survive the passage across the Atlantic to the United States without sustaining some damage and change.
When Methodism first came to what is now the United States, we know that it came into a society very different from the society of Great Britain where it had its origins. For example, John Wesley's revisions of the Book of Common Prayer, which he sent over to America as the guide is for the Sunday service for the Methodists in North America. This very carefully done, and to Wesley, very important guide to worship was, in truth, rather flippantly tossed aside by most of the early Methodist preachers, lay preachers they were, and indeed even by the first ordained preachers in Methodism in America after 1784, when the Methodist Episcopal Church was officially created.
Most of the worship life of early Methodists, and with that term I include, of course, the traditions that, make up the Evangelical Church and the United Brethren Church with which we are now one family. Most of the worship in these early traditions was worship that was quite informal, focusing upon hymn singing, Bible reading, preaching the word, and praying. And Wesley's sacramentalism, while never lost, was certainly de-emphasized and depreciated in the American environment.
I don't think though that we should go too far with this; we should remind ourselves that even in the midst of camp-meeting revivalism, and camp-meeting revivalism was, of course, typical of Methodism in the 17th Century. Even in the midst of this very evangelical expression of the faith, the sacraments continued to have their place in every camp meeting there was often Holy Communion and every camp meeting climaxed with the service of baptism. But it is certainly true that as far as the balance between sacramentalism and evangelicalism that Wesley had developed, the scales do not stay in balance, and there is much more stress upon the evangelical and much less upon the significance of sacraments. As the century goes on, another change occurs in that Methodism ceases to be as interested in emphasizing the necessity of personal conversion and commitment to Christ. And so we no longer find the strong root of evangelical, revivalistic appeal for personal conversion and commitment.
This, it seems to me, underlies a great deal of our difficulties as a denomination today. We have taken the two parts of the Wesley synthesis, the sacramentalism and the evangelicalism, we have torn them asunder. We have de-emphasized the sacramental part quite early in our history in this country and later in our history, we have de-emphasized the evangelical part. And now we wonder why we are losing tens of thousands of members every year. I submit this because we no longer know who we are. We no longer know what we believe. We no longer know what God has called us to do.
It is not that I am foolish enough or naive enough to believe that this document or any document is going to reform and rechannel the church. But I do believe that it does give us the opportunity to recover the authentic identity, and the powerfully important mission, for which God has raised up the people called United Methodists.
As the document goes on, I will only point to the major headings, since time is short. In the second column on 228, and on to the following page, we have simply tried to outline a kind of basic theological understanding that recognizes the reality of human sin and brokenness; recognizes that as human beings we are utterly defendent upon the initiative of God the outreaching love embrace of God, what Wesley called "prevenient grace,"--if that brokenness is to be healed.
Recognizing, on page 229, the absolute necessity of the human response of faith to the gift of God offered to us. And continuing on that page you see a section entitled, "The Means by which God's Grace Comes to Us." We believe, as United Methodists, that God has chosen to work in the church, not just in the church, thank goodness, but God has chosen to work in and through the church for the salvation of the world, and has given to the church certain means through which God's grace can be received.
Then there is the beginning of a lengthy section on page 229 and continuing for some pages there after, talking about the meaning of baptism in the overall understanding of life of faith. And here I simply want to say that the term baptism, as this document uses it is not limited to a particular occasion of administration of water in the name of the triune God with one particular person on one particular morning in one particular worship service. Baptism is seen as part of the process of salvation. For Wesley, unlike for some other traditions, for Wesley salvation is not an event; salvation is a process that works throughout our lives.
And, therefore, baptism is understood correctly only as a part of that process, not in isolation from it. That process calls upon us that every point in our lives as Christians to be open to the working of God's grace and to continue to be nurtured in the faith toward deeper commitment and holiness of life.
In the very last section of the document, prior to the conclusion, page 239, we have carried out the duty with which the General Conference charged us of talking about baptism in relation to other rights of the church. And then finally a concluding statement, in which an attempt has been made to draw together the major emphases of the document. I commend it to you for use in the church, we believe that the experience of creating By Water and the Spirit has been an experience of grace for us. Indeed we know that the committee, as individuals and as a group, has been privileged and touched by the love and grace of God in a special way.
We hope and pray that By Water and the Spirit will function in the United Methodist Church to remind us in a powerful way of the outreaching love of God in Jesus Christ that claims us in baptism as God's own. And the power of that grace to enable us to make the human response of faith through which we become the people God intends for us to be. Thank you.
PAUL ERVIN: I want to take just a moment to thank both Gail and Dale as well as Mark and Peggy Sewell who were so patient with the Discipleship Legislative Committee. We spent about a day to a day-and-a-half on this matter. Every question was answered. And I think that we all can probably get an extra three hours of credit from some seminary somewhere from that experience.
But would you, as a conference, show your appreciation to this study committee for what they've done for our church?
Bishop, there are two items, and I would ask you at this time if you would take out your blue book, page 169. There are two consent agenda items: number 419 and 420. And at this time I would like to ask Greg Stover who is from the West Ohio Conference, he chaired our baptism sub-committee, to come forward to present these petitions.
GREGORY STOVER (sub-committee chair, Discipleship Committee): Thank you. I'm Greg Stover from the West Ohio Conference, and I would like to direct your attention first of all in the blue book, page 169, to Calendar Item 419. This refers to an item in the red book, Volume One, page 945, petition number 21426. The legislative section amended this petition by deleting the words "age or intellectual ability, race or nationality, gender or sexual identity, class or handicapping conditions" so that the paragraph simply reads, "Therefore, all persons shall be eligible..." The rationale is that this brings the language in the Discipline in conformity with the language of By Water and the Spirit, which we have already acted upon. It's simplified language that avoids the need to continually be adding lists or items to lists and categories. The Discipleship section recommends concurrence with this item as amended. The vote was 98 for, 16 against, and 1 not voting.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. Calendar Item 419 is before you with a recommendation of concurrence from the committee. Anyone wish to speak to it? Yes, over here, if you'll come to microphone two.
RICHARD PARKER (New York): Bishop, I guess...
I guess the only way to restore that would be a move to amend the committee report to restore that language which says without regard to race, color, etc., to the calendar item, and I would so move, Bishop.
BISHOP GROVE: Well, I think that if you...you can do it that way, or if you vote this petition down, it essentially leaves it that way.
PARKER: Bishop, if we vote the petition down, there are other amendments...
BISHOP GROVE: All right. We'll receive this as an amendment. You would move to restore the stricken lines in the second through about the seventh. Beginning "without regard" and ending with "handicapping conditions."
PARKER: Yes, Bishop.
BISHOP GROVE: Is there a second? There is. You want to speak to it?
PARKER: Please. I wish we had had a chance to consider that item in regard to the baptism study as well. I would have liked to see that language retained there. I believe we do need to specify those persons very, very clearly who are included not only in the total life of the church and the membership of the church but also entitled to receive the sacrament of baptism in our churches. We know from our own experience that there are people who are denied baptism as a result of being a part of some of those groups named there. One is a person who grew up in my church, now attends a different church, and I told her story in a press conference last week when she and her partner, a family with two mothers, brought the child, or asked the pastor to baptize the child and was told that that child could not be baptized because of the lifestyle of her parents. I feel that we need to be very clear about this. We need to name specifically what we mean by inclusion in The United Methodist Church, and I hope we will restore that language.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. The amendment is before you. Anyone want to speak against the amendment? I don't see anyone. Do you wish to speak?
STOVER: Yes I do. Thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: Then we'll vote.
STOVER: We would oppose the amendment that has been proposed on the floor. I would reiterate once again that this brings language and conformity to that which we have already acted upon. It's simpler language. The listing of multiple categories is unnecessary. The word all, indeed, is very inclusive. All means what it says: all persons. By placing these lists of categories in this particular legislation, it also simply raises red flags to a number of persons across our church. So we would urge you to defeat this amendment.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, vote when the light appears on the amendment.
BISHOP GROVE: The amendment is defeated, and the petition is before you. Anyone else wish to speak to it? I heard a voice. Yes, back here. If you will come to the middle to microphone eight. Please give your name and conference.
LUCILLE VANZANT (Oklahoma Conference): If I was not a member of The United Methodist Church in America, the word "all" might have a different significance. It might mean all men, all women, all white, all black. The United Methodist Church has become known over the world as being an inclusive type of congregation. Whereby, we spell out what we mean. We tell people that we care for women, for men, for ethnics, for handicapping conditions. We tell the world that we love all people, and sometimes people cannot understand that until it's spelled out that we love our neighbors, and we spellout who those neighbors are. Thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. Thank you. I think that speech was on the amendment upon which we had already acted. But the petition is before us. Any other perfection amendments or speeches for or against? Are you ready? I think you are. Vote on the petition 419 when the light appears. [838 approved]
BISHOP GROVE: It is approved.
STOVER: We would now direct your attention once again in the blue book, same page, 169, just to the top of the second column. Calendar Item 420. This refers to an item in your red volume one on page 1058. Petition number 21457. This amendment comes to...or this petition comes as amended from the legislative section. The amendment which we have made in the legislative section is under paragraph C. To delete the last sentence: "The sacrament of baptism may not be repeated" and to insert these words: "The practice of rebaptism does not conform with God's action in baptism and is not consistent with Wesleyan tradition and the historic teaching of the church. Therefore, the pastor should counsel any persons seeking rebaptism to participate in a rite of re-affirmation of baptismal vows." This amendment was passed in the section upon the recommendation of the Baptismal Study Committee. It was an attempt which would reconcile the concerns of those who want a very firm understanding of our baptismal theology expressed on one hand and those who want to provide room for pastoral conscience on the other. There is a minority report on this item. But our section recommended concurrence: for, 91, against, 11, and 2 not voting.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. The petition is before you. As has been indicated there is a minority report. The way we will handle this will be to hear from a representative of the minority, then we will go to perfect the main motion. After having done that, we will perfect the minority report and then entertain it as a substitute, voting on it as a substitute motion after both have been perfected. Who is here to speak for the minority?
STOVER: The minority report will be presented by Charles Brockwell.
CHARLES BROCKWELL (Louisville Conference): Bishop Grove, sisters and brothers of the General Conference, the minority simply asks that the original wording proposed by the General Board of Discipleship be retained. The issue is very simple and very clear. We believe that as our doctrine is quite clear on the issue of rebaptism, especially with the study document that we have just adopted, that the Discipline should be equally clear, and that the Discipline should clearly say there shall not be rebaptism. We do not think this will be administered harshly across the church but administered pastorally by our bishops and our district superintendents. And as one person who teaches our polity to seminarians, I very much need to be able to say to my new pastors in formation: know clearly when you are instructing your people, and when persons come to you asking for rebaptism, that the Discipline says that we do not rebaptize. And that's why the minority moves this minority report. Thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. We'll look now at the petition as it comes to us from the majority. Are there any motions to amend? Any perfection? I see no one.
BISHOP GROVE: I see no one. Then we'll go to the minority report, and see if they're any amendments to it. If not, the two issues will be clearly before us as they've been presented by either side. Any amendment? Yes. This is an amendment to the minority report. All right. He yielded. Then what we need is a motion to substitute the minority report for the majority report, and after that motion's is put then the whole issue will be debated. Put that motion. All right, the minority report is before you. Yes over here, come to microphone seven. This is speech for the minority report? RILEY CASE: No, against.
BISHOP GROVE: Well, all right, you're in order. RILEY CASE (North Indiana): The minority report proposes something that's never been known in United Methodist history and tradition, mainly that rebaptism, that is baptizing someone a second time, under any circumstances, is not only inappropriate and wrong, but it will not be tolerated, and it is very possibly a chargeable offense. In a day of theological confusion, it's good to see an absolutist stand of some kind. Unfortunately, this is the wrong issue on which to take an absolutist stand. Let us have unity on essentials, but I hope this is not what we as a General Conference affirm as an essential of the faith. It is a non-essential. Let us have liberty.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, now we're ready for a motion in favor of the minority report. Anyone wish to speak in favor of the minority report? All right, are you ready? Yes, down here I see a hand. Microphone four.
JAMES LAWSON (California-Pacific): I want to speak, bishop, I want to speak on behalf of retaining the language that the Board of Discipleship has sent us. It seems to me that there is freedom for us to counsel as pastors diligently with people who have issues of baptism. I've discovered as a pastor across the last thirty/forty years, that by having reaffirmations of baptism by seeing baptism as a sacramental element of the church, as a means of grace, and as encouraging my congregations again and again during the year to reaffirm that baptism both when we're baptizing others, and then through rituals that are available and for which I'm happy. One has been put into the new hymnal. I think that language does leave us where we ought to be so far as our understanding of baptism is concerned. We pastors still have the responsibility of helping people to come to understand this, and therefore applying it in a fashion that indeed represents grace.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, that's two speeches for and one against. Is there another speech against? The minority. Yes, here. Microphone seven.
VICTOR GOLDSCHMIDT (North Indiana): I speak with some fear that I may not be able to control myself through this process. My daughter had a second baptism, and I would have given everything I own for that to have taken place. We are acting here a little bit too legalisticly. I would like to ask that pastors present, how many of them have never been involved in a rebaptism? I'd like to ask those that visited the Holy Land, how many of them did not see some evidence of a second baptism? I cannot find anything in the scriptures that guides us to this decision that second baptism is inconsistent with the word. I do agree and I understand our theology is not and the wording now and the petition that was accepted in the Book of Resolutions makes that clear. We do not need to make now a dividing line. Please, I plead with you. Thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: All right we've had two speeches on either side. We can have one more on either side, and then the two representatives of the minority and the majority will have an opportunity to speak. Anyone else? Yes, down here. I think what we need now is a speech for the minority. All right, microphone three.
BILL AUVENSHINE (Central Texas):
BISHOP GROVE: Thank you.
BILL AUVENSHINE: I speak for the retention of the language. I'm certainly no theologian, but I think God got it right the first time. I worked on the Book of Worship for four years. We have a worship service of reaffirmation in the Book of Worship. That should be sufficient to reaffirm our baptism, if we believe, in fact, that God got it right.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, you're entitled to the one more speech against, if there is one. If not we'll go to the representatives. I don't see any hand. Yes. Yes, down here. Microphone five.
EKE HALLOWAY (Sierra Leone): This is on a point of information that I need from the Chair. In respect of rebaptism, now does this relate to the particular church? Do you have a situation where someone has been baptized in another denomination, and wants to be a Methodist? Those been baptized there, can he not be rebaptized in Methodism?
BISHOP GROVE: You address the question to the Chair. I would love to answer it, but I don't think it's appropriate. We'll ask the representative of the committee to answer the question.
STOVER: It's not only the theological position of the United Methodist Church, but of most churches that there is only one baptism; that God has entered into covenant and grace with us at our baptism, and it does not need to be renewed. It should not be renewed. If someone transfers their membership from one church to another the receiving church recognizes the baptism of the church that performed the baptism originally.
BISHOP GROVE: Thank you for the answer. Now there's the opportunity for another statement against is still here. Yes, back here. Microphone...
MICHAEL B. SLAUGHTER (West Ohio): This is a tremendous study report back to our conference. And it really emphasizes the tension we have in The United Methodist Church, and we live in this tension. My fear with this minority report is that this could become the new fundamentalism in the church. I would encourage us to vote against the minority report.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. Under our rules, we are now under the previous question, three speeches on either side. We'll hear first from the representative of the minority and then from the chair of the committee, and then we'll vote.
BROCKWELL: Thank you, sir. Our Discipline will be pastorily administered. And as we know, there are miles to go between a problem and anything like charges being brought. Just last week, one of our probationary members of conference called me long distance with this pastoral question about a potential rebaptism problem. And as we discussed it and she outlined for me what she knew about the situation, it was not clear that there had been baptism in the first instance. And my counsel to her was to do this baptism and to be pastorally sensitive, but the voice of the church in its Discipline needs to be as straightforward as is its doctrine. Page 232 of the red DCA, column 2, the section in the baptismal study on God's faithfulness to the covenant is the theological foundation. This is the disciplinary doing of that doctrine. Thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. Speaker for the majority.
GREGORY D. STOVER (West Ohio): I think there are two issues that are in tension before us. One is an issue of clarity of understanding. We are clear that we understand that rebaptism is not the normal, nor is not within our theological context. But there is a second issue, and that is the issue of clarity of application or implementation. What this language seeks to do, which is before you in the majority report, is it seeks to bring those two together in a sensitive and a well thought out way, in a way that helps us to understand that we need to make a firm statement about our theological understanding of baptism, and yet that we need to realize that it is a nonessential though important doctrine and needs to leave room for pastoral conscience. I would reiterate the fact that even though rebaptism was debated all through the 1800's, and even though the position of the Methodist Church throughout the 1800's was always against rebaptism, it was never stated in a way that could be in any way construed as not allowing freedom of conscience and some latitude for pastors. We hope that you will allow that latitude and the freedom to operate pastorally.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. The issue is clear. If you will vote to substitute the minority for the majority report on this issue, you will vote yes. If you want to stay with the majority report as it's stated, you will vote no. Vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 348; no, 599; abstained, 7] The substitute is defeated, and the petition is before us as it's stated, 419. If you are ready, vote when the light appears. [833 approved] It is supported. Mr. Ervin.
PAUL R. ERVIN JR. (North Georgia): It has been recommended that when Dr. Felton's remarks are printed in the DCA that you might want to preserve copies of that for use in your local conferences. I want to thank all of the people, this morning, who have helped us in this process. We're finishing on the button for the day. Thank you, bishop.
BISHOP GROVE: Thank you very much, and thanks again to the study committee. (applause) We go now back to the Committee on Conferences. George Hunter is the chairperson to present calendar items.
GEORGE HUNTER (Florida): Like most of you, the Committee on Conferences put in a full month last week, and I was pleased to work with our vice chair, Judith Siaba of the Northern Illinois Conference and our secretary Beth Cook from the North Georgia Conference. Today we bring eleven legislative petitions to your attention. You will find them in the DCA for Saturday on pages 167 and 168. They're marked as items 406 through 416. We will commend action on ten of them and will move to defer consideration on one of them.
The first is item 406. The original petition will be found in your red book on page 181. It is petition number 21558. This is its essence: the petition proposes that all petitions to General Conference involving proposals that would require funding, either for new programs or expansions of existing programs, must be accompanied by noting its estimated cost as well as noting what the source of that funding would be; and the petition would be invalid and would not be considered before the General Conference without that cost estimate and the acknowledged source of funding.
Our committee voted nonconcurrence by 66 to 11, with this rationale. We believe the petition had merit; there's certainly a limit to the number of good ideas that any one denomination can fund and thereby implement. Nevertheless, the majority of our group found the petition unnecessarily restrictive and would be tantamount to saying to most of the church that we don't really want people's contribution to this important process. Bishop, it is appropriately before us.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. It is before you, the recommendation of nonconcurrence. Anyone wish to speak to it? All right. If you want to support the committee, you will vote yes to nonconcur. If you wish to oppose the committee, you will vote no. Vote when the light appears. [818 approved] The committee is supported. We nonconcur with Calendar Item 406.
HUNTER: Calendar Item 407 is described in the red book, page 175. It comes from petition 20063. The essence of the petition is to allow annual conferences greater flexibility to organize for their understanding of their distinct mission and their region and culture. Our committee voted concurrence as amended. As I recall, 71 for and 4 against, reminiscent of a University of Kentucky half-time basketball score. (laughter) Our vote was accompanied with this rationale. The idea of allowing flexibility in the conferences and in the churches has considerable support in a great many petitions coming before this General Conference, and many conferences are already doing what this petition would give permission for. They've been there. They've done that. It was our reasoning that that is the direction in which this parade of conferences is already marching. Therefore, the General Conference needs to run around and get in front of this parade because we're supposed to be the leaders.
BISHOP GROVE: This is a constitutional amendment. It will take two-thirds. Anyone wish to speak to it? I see no card. All right. It will take two-thirds vote. Vote yes for concurrence, which is the committees recommendation, no for nonconcurrence. Vote when the light appears. [895 approved] It is supported by more than two-thirds, so it is approved.
HUNTER: Bishop, Calendar Item 408, that petition is found in the red book, page 175. On that page you will find petition 20961. That petition proposes that annual conference delegates to General and Juristictional Conferences be elected out of a calculation that combines the total of church members and clergy, not on the basis of clergy alone as we have it at present.
HUNTER: This is the one upon which I need to ask that we defer consideration on this petition until we take up similar petitions later that deal with more or less the same concern. The rationale for this request is that we initially concurred with this petition as we had amended it some. But the more some of our members thought about this, the more some thought that it required further study. And therefore, when we revisit this, we will propose that, and we would like to defer this now.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, so this one is being deferred by the committee. Ok.
HUNTER: The next item is number 409. You'll find it in the white book.
BISHOP GROVE: George, let me interupt just a moment to remind the house, I think they all know this, but just to be sure, the constitutional amendment we just passed on paragraph 15 will also require a vote in all of the annual conferences, and an aggregate two-thirds vote of all the annual conferences. So we have not actually implemented that. We've taken the first step toward amending the constitution. I just wanted to be clear. OK.
HUNTER: Thank you. In the white book, page 1263, you'll find petition 20783. In its essence, this petition proposes that petitions to the General Conference may come from lay persons or clergy persons or from groups of United Methodists. Our Committee on Conferences voted concurrence to this, by a vote of 45 to 32. I can reflect the discussion on both sides, I think, very briefly. Some folks had some resistance about petitions coming to the General Conference from unrecognized or unofficial groups of United Methodists. But on the other side, the majority seemed to feel that because any United Methodist is free to petition the General Conference, therefore, any group of United Methodists ought to be free to petition General Conference, and in any case, the spirit of this, of any resistance to it, would be unenforceable because individuals of groups would simply petition General Conference as individuals rather than as groups, and would thereby storm General Conference with even more petitions. And we were not in the mood, at that moment at least, to welcome still more petitions.
BISHOP GROVE: So the committee's recommending concurrence?
HUNTER: Yes.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. It's before you. Clear back in the corner, go to microphone six.
DENNY WHITE (Western North Carolina): I believe Dr. Hunter gave the wrong rationale for this petition. This petition, does it not, has to do with publishing petitions from individuals in the Advance DCA that we receive in the mail?
HUNTER: Well, I thought I wrote it down right, but, Bishop, what is the procedure for checking the validity of this?
BISHOP GROVE: The suggestion is that we're dealing with a different petition than you thought we were, is that it? I'm not sure. We're on 409, correct?
HUNTER: Yes. I'm on 1263 in the white book.
BISHOP GROVE: Yes, OK, I'm told by my helper that the comment from the floor was correct. The Calendar Item 409 has to do with printing petitions.
HUNTER: Ah, OK, yes, thank you. Then our vote to concurrence would be commended to you as has been corrected.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, it's before you. Question? I heard this, yes, here. Come to number seven.
VICTOR GOLDSCHMIDT (North Indiana): I wonder whether an estimate was made of how many pages this would be if all the petitions that are going to be published submitted by individuals and groups, we're going to have a massive, massive documentation mailed to us. And I'm concerned by this. The principle is good, but the cost may be overwhelming. Also for those receiving it, trying to read it all.
HUNTER: We did not discuss that at great range, but as I recall, we felt like the publishing of petitions from groups would reduce rather than increase the number of petitions we would receive.
BISHOP GROVE: Down here. I'm sorry. Yes. Go ahead.
GOLDSCHMIDT: Is not the petition to publish those submitted by individuals as well?
HUNTER: Yes, that's correct.
GOLDSCHMIDT: Thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: Yes, down here. Microphone three.
DAVE RICHARDSON (California-Pacific): I think the real issue, from our perspective, came down to having them all in one book, so we wouldn't be going back and forth from book to book, and also, simply recognizing that they were of equal weight. And I think that's why we voted in favor; the ones that did.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, as I have it, that's two speeches for and one against. Anyone want to speak against this? Back here. Come to microphone eight.
JUNE McCULLOUGH (Southern New Jersey): Bishop, is an amendment in order?
BISHOP GROVE: Yes.
McCULLOUGH: I would move that following the word "submitted by" we add: "local churches," and then continue on.
BISHOP GROVE: So you would insert between "submitted by an individual member," local churches, and then it would go on individual members, etc.?
McCULLOUGH: It would read, "petitions properly submitted by local churches, (comma), individual members, (comma), and so forth...
BISHOP GROVE: OK, is that amendment seconded? (second from floor) It is.
McCULLOUGH: May I make a statement?
BISHOP GROVE: Yes.
McCULLOGH: It seems to me that we have a large number of petitions also from local churches, and they ought to be given equal consideration as those from individuals or groups. And it's extremely helpful if they're all in one volume.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, that's an amendment to the petition. Does anyone want to speak against it?
HUNTER: I think we'd regard that as a friendly amendment.
BISHOP GROVE: Unless the house objects, it will be included. I see no objection. All right, the petition has been amended. Center aisle, on the right. Yes, back here, come to microphone thirteen.
JAMES PERRY (Troy): James Perry, Troy Conference. I believe that June McCullough's amendment is redundant. Local church groups are already included.
HUNTER: I think that's essentially correct. With her addition, it then permits individuals or groups of people within a church, or the whole church, to submit a petition.
BISHOP GROVE: Well, I think that Jim Perry is suggesting that local churches can submit them for inclusion in the Advance DCA under the present rules. We didn't need to amend it, but we have amended it, and unless we move to reconsider it, it stays in. All right. We're not reconsidering unless someone asks to do that. We're on the petition itself. Are you ready? Yes, down here. If you go to microphone nine.
JEFF SITTS (Minnesota): The weight of our white books right now is like a pound. What would the cost be of mailing the white book added to the red DCA, and mailing all that to every delegate? We'd add a lot of cost?
BISHOP GROVE: What's your question again?
SITTS: What would be the cost of mailing the white book as inserted into the red DCA under the amendment so far?
BISHOP GROVE: What would be the cost if the white book as we now get here was part of the red book? That's a question I can't answer. Anyone want to answer that? We don't have that information. All right. That was a question. Question back here? Yes, go to microphone eight.
JUNE McCULLOUGH (Southern New Jersey): Bishop, I want to be sure I heard your statement correctly. You said that local church petitions are already in the Advance DCA? I do not believe that is true.
BISHOP GROVE: I said that that was what Jim Perry said. (laughter) I don't know.
McCULLOUGH: Sir, I do not think that's correct.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. It's irrelevant because your amendment prevailed, and nobody moved to reconsider it, so it will be in there the next time. Anyone else? Hand back here. I saw a green card right off this aisle. Yes. Go to microphone nine.
JOE HARRIS (Oklahoma): I move all that is before us.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, is there a second? (second from floor) There is. We've had two speeches, so that's in order. No debate on the call for the previous question. The previous question is on the petition, which is all that is before us. Vote when the light appears. It takes two-thirds. [825 approved]
We're on the previous question and we'll vote. If you support the committee's recommendation on the petition, vote yes. If you do not support the committee, vote no. Vote when the light appears. [843 approved] It is supported.
HUNTER: Bishop, the next petition is Calendar Item 410 found in the red book, page 176.
BISHOP GROVE: Yes, what is your point of order? Come to microphone two.
JINNY GORDON (Central Illinois): Is there a way we can keep that line on the screen giving us the page numbers and things? As we flip back and forth, it would really be helpful if it doesn't keep disappearing. If it's helpful, if you can, we'd like that to happen, I think.
BISHOP GROVE: Well, I'm sure the people heard that, and will do it, if possible. It's technically not a point of order, but it's all right.
HUNTER: In the red book, on page 176. (point of order from floor)
BISHOP GROVE: Yes, what's your point of order? Come to microphone, well, I don't see you. Come to microphone nine. Yes.
GRAYSON ATHA (West Ohio): My point of order is not being seen. And the number of people in our delegation and in the back parts are having cards up, and I know it's very difficult for you to see. Perhaps there's some way that could be developed for later sessions, so that you, the person in the chair, can be aware of people trying to get the floor in the back. Thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: Thank you. It is very difficult to see against these lights, and against the back bleachers. Let me ask, while I'm in the chair, if people in the back will stand when you raise your card? I'll do my best.
HUNTER: In Volume One of the advanced copy of the DCA on page 176, you'll find petition number 21127, which is Calendar Item 410 in Saturday's DCA.
GEORGE HUNTER: The essence of this proposal would add the chair of the Annual Conference college student organization to the paragraph of the constitution which defines the ex-officio members of the annual conference. Our committee voted concurrence with this 75 to nothing, but it is before us rather than on the consent calendar because this, too, would amend the constitution.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, it's before you. Does anyone in the back want to speak to this? (laughter) Or anyone in the front? Or anywhere? Yes, down here. Number eight.
SUSAN RUACH: (South Indiana) I have a question. Is this the same as the young adult council?
BISHOP GROVE: No.
RUACH: Thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, anyone else?
HUNTER: It would be in addition to that person.
BISHOP GROVE: I think you're ready. Vote when the light appears. Yes, two-thirds, this is a constitutional amendment. (pause) It is supported subject to ratification in the annual conference. [804 approved]
HUNTER: Our next two petitions are petitions upon which our committee voted non-concurrence and it is our judgment that they involve such similar perspectives that we can take them up together. Items 411 and 412, both of which are described in the white book on page 1264. The essence of them is as follows: Item 411 would prohibit bishops, agencies and church officials from publicly supporting positions inconsistent with the Social Principles of the church; item 412 would prohibit similar suppport on matters that contradict official statements of the church. The committee voted nonconcurrence on both by a vote of 68 to 12. There are a great many reasons that were given pro and con and so we commend any necessary discussion of this to the General Conference.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, you're presenting them together?
HUNTER: Yes.
BISHOP GROVE: I think we better take them separately. Calendar Item 411 is before you with a recommendation of nonconcurence. Anyone want to speak to it? All right, vote when the light appears. The committee is supported, and we nonconcur. Calendar Item 412. Vote when the light appears. [698 approved] The committee is supported and we nonconcur.
HUNTER: Item 413 is found back in your red book, page 181. Petition number 20202. In its essence, it simply proposes that a new addition of the Discipline shall not reprint any clauses from previous editions of the Discipline that in the interim have been declared unconstitutional by the judicial council. We voted nonconcurrence of this 64 to 8.
BISHOP GROVE: Want to say why? (laughter) The recommendation asks that we not print material that's been declared unconstitutional. Is that right? And you're recommending nonconcurrence.
HUNTER: Let me quickly ask my colleagues. The DCA says we recommended nonconcurrence, but that in fact contrasts with my own aging memory. Can the chair or the secretary of that committee help us recall? Or some other member of the committee? I see a hand went up.
BISHOP GROVE: Down here. Microphone two.
MENNO GOODE (Eastern Pennsylvania): In 1988 the Judicial Council declared paragraph 702f unconstitutional; it was repeated in the 1992 Discipline to the great confusion of the church.
BISHOP GROVE: But that is a speech against the committee, the committee recommends nonconcurrence which would continue the material which has been declared unconstitutional, if I understand it right. I may be not understanding it...back here. It has to be only one person, you can't all come to the mike. Microphone 13.
PAUL EXTRUM-FERNANDEZ (California-Nevada): As I recall, George, I serve on the legislative committee and there was another petition that was addressing this and that's why we're voting for nonconcurrence on this particular petition.
HUNTER: That's helpful, thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: I think it would be helpful, not only for now, but for the future, if we know that when we receive it because otherwise it simply confuses the house; it might be better to bring us the position that we concur with, then simply indicate that the other petitions are duplicates. I wonder if it would be the will of the body to refer this one back to the committee until we can get clarity on it. Doesn't seem to me to be wise to continue material in the Discipline that's been declared unconstitutional. Can we do that by common consent? ALL: Yes.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, thank you. George before you go to the next one, I have an appeal from somebody who says they have been sending this by the pages and it isn't working, that it is too cold. How many of you think it's too cold? (many conflicting voices) I'm not going to get my dog in that fight. You want to vote when the light appears?
HUNTER: For the record, on 413 did we in fact concur by acclamation? Or did we refer back? OK, we referred back.
BISHOP GROVE: We referred back.
HUNTER: Number 414 is found in your red book also, number 178. Petition number 20558. The petition proposed in essence that we delete paragraph 506.1 in the Discipline, and amend 506.2 in a way that eliminates nominations in the conferences or jurisdictions for episcopal elections. We voted nonconcurrence with this petition, I think largely because a majority of our committee, 59 to 14, like the nominating process.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, the recommendation is for nonconcurrence with this petition which would eliminate nominations for episcopal election. Anyone want to speak to it? Vote when the light appears. [789 approved] The committee is supported, we do not concur with that calendar item.
HUNTER: Number 415 will be found in the red book on page 177. The essence of the petition calls for a reconfiguration of the office of the president of the Council of Bishops in a way that would involve a four-year-term for the president of the Council of Bishops. It would call for that Bishop who was elected, that Bishop's jurisdiction, electing another Bishop to do the annual conference episcopal duties, freeing the president of the council to lead the whole church full time. The committee voted nonconcurrence with this petition by 64 to 11, largely out of a reluctance to empower any one individual in our church as much as that seemed to suggest.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, it is before you with a recommendation of nonconcurrence. I don't see any... All right, vote when the light appears. [874 approved] The committe is supported, we do not concur.
HUNTER: Bishop, Item 416 is found once again in the white book, page 1259, petition 22736. It proposes adding deaconesses as lay members of the annual conference in which they serve. The committee voted concurrence with this petition 74 to 0. It is before us because it also involves an amendment to the constitution.
BISHOP GROVE: All right it's before you, it would be an amendment to the constitution. Anyone wish to speak to it? Yes, back here, microphone seven.
BISHOP GROVE: I saw a card. Oh, you've gone to six. All right. Microphone six.
CHARLES "DENNY" WHITE (Western North Carolina): I couldn't find seven, sir. I'm Denny White, Western North Carolina. It is with greatest reluctance that I rise to oppose this lest I be thought to be against deaconesses somehow. I'm not. I've been given assurance by Global Ministries personnel in New York that the concerns I am about to address would be addressed when this amendment came to the legislative committee. They may have been. I don't know. But, basically, the problem as I see it is two-fold. First, deaconesses, unlike diaconal ministers, are not elected or consecrated by the annual conferences. They are commissioned by the General Board of Global Ministries and the bishops of the church. So that's one sort of difficulty I have. But there's an even more practical consideration, at least for the conference of which I happen to be secretary. In western North Carolina, we are blessed with the presence in Asheville of the Brooks Howell Home in which reside some 40 retired deaconneses. And in my view, this insertion of simply an undefined word, "deaconnesses," does not help me, at least, to understand to which deaconesses it refers.
Does it refer to those who are appointed to serve within the bounds of the annual conference? Or perhaps, does it refer to any and all who have ever served within that conference and perhaps are now retired? Or perhaps, does it refer to those who hold church membership in the annual conference? Or perhaps, does it refer to those who reside in the annual conference? I don't know that any other conference would have this problem, but as the conference officer responsible for administering the membership equalization provisions of the Constitution, this simple, unmodified word gives me in Western North Carolina infinite problems. And for that reason, I rise to oppose it, not because I'm opposed to deaconesses, necessarily, voting in the annual conference, but because I don't know to which deaconesses it refers.
BISHOP GROVE: Thank you. That's one speech against. Anyone want to speak for this? Yes, back here. If you'll come to microphone nine.
LaVON KINCAID (Western Pennsylvania Conference): I served on the legislative committee that dealt with this concern, and we see deaconesses as servants of the church. And I would speak in favor, because as we discussed it with the information provided to us, we felt that there were not a large number within our denomination, and we felt that those who are currently serving deserve the right and opportunity to be a member of the annual conference. Thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. Is there another speech against, or are you ready? Yes. Speech against. Right here, number nine.
ARMIN BESSERER (German South): We have some 500 deaconesses in hospitals, and if we vote that they be members in the conference, they are twice as much as some conferences. So I don't know what to vote.
BISHOP GROVE: That is a speech against. Speech for. Anyone over here? In the back, yes. Come to microphone seven. I guess I saw a page. Microphone eight.
PAUL DIRDAK (California-Nevada): Yes, here. Bishop, would it be proper to refer this back to the committee so that these questions could be answered by the committee, questions which apparently the committee has not considered?
BISHOP GROVE: That's in order. A motion to refer?
DIRDAK: This is a motion to refer.
BISHOP GROVE: Is there a second? (second) If you will refer, vote when the light appears. [780 approved]
BISHOP GROVE: It is referred.
GEORGE HUNTER: Bishop, that concludes the petitions from the Committee on Conferences.
BISHOP GROVE: Thank you George. I'm sure you'll be back. You're not through. You don't mean you're through; you're through for now. OK. Church and Society, Don Pike.
DON PIKE (Central Texas): Don Pike, Central Texas...
BISHOP GROVE: Yes, just a second. A hand down here. Come to the microphone, please. Come down to four.
CHARLES LIPPSE (Holston Conference): Bishop Grove, I would like a point of information in regard to Rules and Organizational Rules of the General Conference, page 99, Number 13. I ask for that information at this time while we're still dealing with conferences. This is in regard to distribution of unofficial material. Materials have been distributed to our desk during this session today which I think would be unofficial. I would like for the chair to examine that rule and have some clarity. I could describe this material if you wish. It not only seems to be unofficial, but it carries the United Methodist insignia which is another concern that came before the previous General Conference.
BISHOP GROVE: Rule 12 says that after the first day only the Daily Christian Advocate shall be placed on the desks of delegates. So there shouldn't be anything else coming to your desks.
LIPPSE: Sir, may I make a brief comment?
BISHOP GROVE: Sure.
LIPPSE: This paper entitled "Let's Go Forward, Not Backward, Please" carries the United Methodist insignia, and at the bottom it is published by the National Association of Korean-American Clergy Women and other concerned laity at the 1996 General Conference. It would seem that material is out of order, and I would like for the chair to instruct other groups not to distribute such material. It even says that there is a punitive measure to be taken in regard to this.
BISHOP GROVE: I think that your point is well taken, and I am instructing everyone to observe Rule 12 on page 99 of the Plan of Organizations and Rules. After the first day, only the Daily Christian Advocate shall be placed on the desks of the delegates, and additional copies for the clergy and first lay reserve delegates.
PIKE: Don Pike, Central Texas Conference. We are going to begin with the white edition. If you'd please turn to page 1247. White edition, page 1247. Right hand column, second petition from the top. Petition Number 22655, entitled "Regarding Public Funding for Condom Distribution," which is really not an appropriate title for the petition. You will find it Calendar Item 417 on page 168. In turn, this is a resolution. If you want to refer to the ultimate result of the petition, you will want to open your Book of Resolutions to pages 375, 376. It is the section of the Book of Resolutions entitled "The Status of Women." It will be addressing paragraph eight under roman numeral three. In effect, the committee has amended this petition by substitution. And you will find the text of that substitution beginning at the bottom of page 168 with the word "to support programs" and ending at the top of page 169, "freely available elsewhere." In effect, as the committee examined the existing paragraph in the Book of Resolutions, they felt like that it needed updating. They simply rewrote this particular paragraph, and it was approved by committee action 63 to 24 for concurrence as amended by substitution.
BISHOP GROVE: And it is before us, with a recommendation for concurrence. Anyone want to speak to it? Down here, yes. Come to microphone two. Saw a gentleman with a green card I recognized up front.
BETH CAPEN; (New York Conference): I would urge us to not vote with the committee on this in that the current language in our Discipline, I believe, is better and stronger.
BISHOP GROVE: It's a speech against. Anyone want to speak for this? Yes, back here. In the back of the room. The lady. Yes, ma'am. Microphone nine.
ELIZABETH WRIGHT (Virginia Conference): I would like to rise to concurrence with this petition speaking particularly to the matter of abstinence as a method of birth control. This does not mean we are against other means of birth control. In my opinion, we need to speak clearly, especially to our young people, that this is an appropriate stance. Other churches have programs for their young people. I speak particularly of "Love Can Wait." Our young people in our Virginia Conference have endorsed that program as being an appropriate stance for them. I would, therefore, commend this to the entire church. I ask that you will concur with this position. Thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. Is there a speech against? I think you're ready. The committee is recommending concurrence. Vote when the light appears.
[Results: yes, 737]
BISHOP GROVE: The committee is supported, we have concurred with petition 417.
DON PIKE: Our next item is in the red book, page 128. Petition number 20944, you will find it in the right hand column, the fourth item down. It's entitled "Meetings." The petition requests the deletion of paragraph 1110. This is another one of those items that we dealt with yesterday.
BISHOP GROVE: Let's ask you to go a little slower and let us find it. Give us the number, the page number, and the petition number again, please.
PIKE: All right, page 128. Petition 20944, right hand column, fourth item down, entitled "Meetings," calls for the deletion of paragraph 1110 from the Discipline. This another one of those items like we had yesterday, where we're taking things out of the Discipline and putting them in the bylaws of the General Board of Church and Society.
BISHOP GROVE: Now this is petition number 418 on page 169, correct?
PIKE: No, DCA, petition number 20944, right hand column, fourth item down, entitled "Meetings," delete of paragraph 1110. It's Calendar Item 418.
BISHOP GROVE: That's what I was asking.
PIKE: I'm sorry. Committee approved this concurrence 80 to 10.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, it's before you, the recommendation of concurrence. It's Calendar Item 418. Anyone wish to speak to it? Vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 887] You have concurred. In support of the committee, we concur with Calendar Item 418.
PIKE: Those are the only two items we have, bishop.
BISHOP GROVE: We have about 10 minutes. Do we have anything from...Okay, Finance and Administration is ready. Cashar Evans.
CASHAR W. EVANS JR. (North Carolina): I'd like to ask Grady Knowles from Cal-Nevada Conference to present Calendar Item 421.
GRADY KNOWLES (California-Nevada): Thank you Bishop, delegates, guests. For this one item you'll need your blue DCA and you'll need volume two, or the white volume of the Advance DCA. In the blue DCA, please turn to page 169. On page 169, in the center column, at the bottom, is Calendar Item 421. This item deals with the HealthFlex program, which is currently offered to conferences and others by the General Board of Pensions and Health Benefits.
Now with your blue DCA opened to that page, please take your white volume two of the Advance DCA, and turn to page 1322. On page 1322, in the right hand column, the petition number is 22760. It's entitled, "Expand Options of the HealthFlex Insurance Program." This petition would direct the General Board of Pensions and Health Benefits to offer what is known as "domestic partner coverage" as a part of the HealthFlex program, which is available to conferences now. It further directs annual conferences to notify the present and other eligible employees and other participants in the HealthFlex plan, that this option is being offered.
From the legislative committee on financial administration, this recommendation comes to you. This petition comes to you, with a recom- mendation for concurrence. The vote of the legislative committee was 87 in favor of concurrence, seven against, four abstentions. Bishop it's before you.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, the recommendation is concurrence. Back here, see a card. Back left, going to microphone 15.
SUE SHERBROOKE (Pacific Northwest): I rise to amend by substitution.
BISHOP GROVE: All right.
SHERBROOKE: The substitution would read, "The General Board of Pensions and Health Benefits is strongly encouraged to offer annual conferences and other participant plann sponsors the option to provide health benefit coverage under the hospitalization and medical expense program to members of participants' non-traditional family. If I have a second I'll speak to it.
BISHOP GROVE: Before you have a second, where are you placing the amendment in the text?
SHERBROOKE: It's by substitution. I would replace it in its entirety.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, so it's an amendment by substitution for all of Calendar Item 420?
SHERBROOKE: Yes.
BISHOP GROVE: Is it seconded? All right you may speak. It's 421, right.
SHERBROOKE: Yes, 421. I believe that our committee opposed this, in part, because it was so directive, and because it focused on domestic partners. Our Social Principles, however, state that we believe the family to be the basic human community through which persons are nurtured; and that we understand the family to encompass options in addition to the nuclear family, including the extended family, adults with adopted children, single parents, etc.
Since health insurance is an important element in maintaining the well-being and stability of families, we believe it is both consistent and necessary for us to make this option available.
You'll note that this substitute is permissive legislation, which allows annual conferences and other planned sponsors the option to make this coverage available. It is not a mandate. It does not require an annual conference or local church to do anything. It simply would make the option available. We believe that's in keeping with the value of local flexibility, expressed so often during this General Conference.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, thank you. Now do you need to have the amendment re-read or do you have a sense that, I'm asking the house, or do you have a sense of what this is? Are you able to proceed, or do you want her to re-read it? I think we should ask you to re-read it. I think it will save us time in the long run.
SHERBROOKE: All right. The General Board of Pensions and Health Benefits is strongly encouraged to offer annual conferences and other participant plan sponsors the option to provide health benefit coverage under the hospital and medical expense program to members of participants' non-traditional family.
BISHOP GROVE: Thank you. Anyone want to speak against that substitution? Yes, back here? Yes, I'm recognizing you. Yes, microphone 12.
DELOS D. CORDERMAN (South Carolina): What Sue is addressing is an eligibility issue; and eligibility should be determined by the planned sponsor. I believe that an annual conference, as a planned sponsor, could entertain what Sue wants to do, but I don't think you put a horse in a doghouse. I think this ought to be left up to annual conferences who are plann sponsors. And for that reason, I speak against Sue's amendment.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, anyone want to speak for it? I just hear, but I don't see where it is. Yes down front, all right, number four.
MERLIN J. ACKERSON (Iowa): I'd like to speak in favor of the substitute. I think the information that came just a moment ago was it's up to the annual conference. And that's true. I think what this legislation, that I hear being proposed, is that it asks the Board of Pensions [and] Health Benefits to provide that option for annual conferences. Now is that...that not possible?
BISHOP GROVE: I believe you are correct, that is the intention of the substitute.
ACKERSON: OK, so that's what we're asking them to do. So it's not up to just annual conferences, it's up to the Board of Pensions and Health Benefits.
BISHOP GROVE: All right. Two speeches for the substitute; anyone want to speak against it? Back here, yes, center. Yes ma'am, come to A.
JUNE D. MCCULLOUGH (Southern New Jersey): Bishop, it would be helpful if someone could inform us if the options for the example she gave are not now available, because they sounded to me like they might be.
KNOWLES: I can respond to that. The option for domestic partner coverage, or in the case of the substitute, for benefit coverage for a participant's non-traditional family, are not presently an election of annual conferences within the health plan, the HealthFlex plan document. They could be added as an annual conference option if the General Conference directed them to; if the General Board of Pensions was able to incorporate that kind of language among the states where HealthFlex is offered; and if the body adopted that change later. This is permissive legislation on the substitution as I understand it.
BISHOP GROVE: Yes, the substitute's before you. Anyone want to speak against it? We've had two speeches for it. Yes, microphone nine.
J. LaVON KINCAID SR. (Western Pennsylvania): Bishop, I move the previous question.
BISHOP GROVE: It's not in order until we've had two speeches on either side. Anyone else? Back here, yes. Microphone 14. That's all right, come to nine. That's all right.
BISHOP GROVE: All right.
BILL HINES (West Ohio): I have the Social Principles before me, and I have the preface. They're intended to be instructive, persuasive, and the best of prophetic spirit, and to be a prayerful, studied dialogue of faith. Therefore, they cannot be used, in my estimation, to support this kind of an action. So my suggestion is we go back and take the previous question and deal with it.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, that's two speeches against. You can't make a speech and move the previous question. Two speeches against; anyone want to speak for it? Back here, yes. I see you. Number eight. I recognized the gentleman waving the card on this side. That's who I recognized. (laughter) Yes, sir. Number eight.
THOMAS BOLLER (Yellowstone): I speak in favor of the substitution. The original petition came from a local church, and as it came before the Financial Administration legislative committee, it came and went almost without attention. As some of us reviewed that afterwards, we realized that this just might be one of those places where the small voice of God might be trying to speak to us. I believe that, while the Social Principles do not dictate direction that we should take, they certainly are an informative statement on how we should prayerfully consider all of our actions. The insurance industry allows for this type of coverage; and indeed, in private industry, many employers are providing that kind of coverage. It is time for us to be combining the actions of our faith with the words we proclaim. Therefore, I speak in favor of the substitution to make coverage available to those who have, are taking care of dependent parents, those who may have siblings who are their dependents in a variety of ways, those who have domestic partners that are in covenant with them even though society in many other ways may not recognize that covenant. Thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: We're at the time where we're going to have to stop, so we're either going to have to vote on the substitute or hold it over. Are you ready to vote on this? (yes from floor) What's the point of inquiry? Number five.
MEL BOWDAN (Kentucky): Bishop, I realize that time is of the essence right now.
BISHOP GROVE: Yes, Mel Bowdan, Kentucky.
BOWDAN: Bishop, all of this sounds very good, but I think we need to hear either from the committee whether they have looked at what the impact of this substitute motion might be or to the Board of Pensions. If they don't have that information, then perhaps this should be referred for that.
BISHOP GROVE: Yes, I'm going to ask the chair to have the last statement.
GRADY KNOWLES (California-Nevada): Yes, the committee has looked at the impact of this. The Health-Flex program is presently offered to annual conferences and other plan sponsors in all fifty states. States have different regulations and, in some cases, mandates that vary regarding health insurance, and so there might be some legal issues that would need to be pursued if the substitute became the main petition and were adopted. There's also the matter of taxability of benefits for those who are what are known as sponsored dependents instead of being what are known as legal dependents. However, even though there are some legal issues and some possibility of taxability of benefit issues, the wording of the substitution would allow the General Board of Pensions, as the administrator of the plan, to carry out the wishes of this body, regardless of which way the body voted, after it adopted the substitution as the main motion.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, we're on the substitute now. If you will substitute, vote yes. If you're in favor of the petition as stated and against the substitute, vote no. Vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 408 ; no, 516 ; abstained,44] It is not substituted. Now we're ready on Calendar Item 421. The committee recommends concurrence, excuse, me nonconcurrence. If you support the committee on nonconcurrence on Calendar Item 421, vote yes when the light appears. [Results: yes, 673; no, 265; abstained, 14] You have supported the committee and nonconcurred with 421.
KNOWLES: Thank you, Bishop.
BISHOP GROVE: Now, before we recess, I have a point of personal privilege. J. Philip Wogamann, then announcements from the secretary. Phil, if you'll come to microphone six. Or seven. Wherever.
J. PHILIP WOGAMAN: Bishop, thank you for this privilege. This has to do with the letter to Elizabeth Dole which we discussed earlier. I have had the privilege of serving as pastor on behalf of Christ and the church to both President and Mrs. Clinton, and to Senator and Mrs. Dole, the presumptive standard bearers of both parties in the forthcoming presidential election. I support both the invitation to the First Lady to speak and the letter to Mrs. Dole. Mrs. Dole is now a member of a Presbyterian church, a denomination with which we have cordial relationships, and she has left us with our prayers and best wishes. So the letter addressed to her may need some editorial revision without diminishing its cordiality and warmth. Bishop, in light of the fact that both candidates and their spouses have been identified with one of our churches, I ask that the conference pause for a moment of prayer for all four of these persons to be led by Bishop Yeakel, in whose area that church is located. Thank you.
BISHOP GROVE: I'm sure you give permission for this privilege. Bishop Yeakel, would you offer prayer?
BISHOP YEAKEL: (prayer)
BISHOP GROVE: Thank you. Now the secretary has some announcements.
CAROLYN MARSHALL: The leadership team of Ordained and Diaconal Ministry will please meet immediately after the morning session in A106.
Because there have been referrals, all legislative committees except that for Independent Commissions and the Commission on Central Conference Affairs will need to meet this afternoon at 3:35. Higher Education will meet on the floor near the press table area to the right of the platform.
The Public Service Officer encourages persons to be very careful crossing the tracks to visit the Advance tent. Please watch out for the train.
Another word of caution, delegates and visitors are advised that the areas behind the stage are restricted areas. Only appropriate technical personnel are to be in these areas.
And the final one comes as an invitation to all African American pastors and bishops of Africa inviting you to a lunch at the Marriott Hotel this afternoon at 12:30, Denver Suite Four, Lower Level Two, to dialogue about the crisis on the continent of Africa.
BISHOP GROVE: All right, we're in recess until two o'clock.
General Conference Webmaster: Susan Brumbaugh
PETS Creator: John Brawn
Floor Proceedings, April 22
1996 United Methodist General Conference