Plenary Session Proceedings
Tuesday, April 23: Evening Session

1996 United Methodist General Conference

Tuesday Evening
April 23, 1996

BISHOP CLAY FOSTER LEE, JR.: I'd like to ask you now, if you would please, bring your conversation to a close. And if you would be seated in your place, I'd like for us to enter into a time of prayer. And our prayer this evening is going to be a chorus that means so much to all of us. We're going to change a word in it. Rather than singing and praying "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom", we're going to be singing "Jesus, remember us," and with the emphasis upon the fact that that's a plural term, not just those of us here, but all of God's people around this world. Cynthia, come and lead us, if you would, as we pray together through song.

BISHOP LEE: Amen. I see a card. Would you please go to microphone 5?

JUNE P. GOLDMAN (Iowa): Bishop Lee, thank you for this moment of personal privilege.

BISHOP LEE: Would the conference please be in order?

GOLDMAN: I wish to convey concern that has been expressed by a number of persons including observers and visitors who are here. The focal point of this conference resides in the cup and the loaf, certainly a most appropriate and deeply meaningful image. But our friends have asked why there is no cross to hold our attention as a constant focal point. To be sure, there is a cross that is part of the logo that appears occasionally on the screen. But most of the time, the screen is filled with other images. And unfortunately, the cup and the loaf are not visible from many of the sections where we are seated. Since the cross is central to our faith and needs to undergird all of our deliberations, I would respectfully ask the appropriate committee if it might be possible to include a cross somewhere on the platform as a gentle reminder of whose we are. Thank you. (applause)

BISHOP LEE: Thank you. A matter of personal privilege requesting that

the appropriate committee would take under consideration the placing of a cross as a symbol, central symbol here on the platform. Yes, I see a card to my left. Go to microphone 10, please. And if you would, please, state the nature of...

AKASA UMEMBUDI (Central Zaire): The dear Bishop, brothers and sisters, delegate to the, to this General Conference. We all are very excited for all the good things that have been done, accomplished with Africa University. There is no need to tell you that I am an African, and that, consequently, Africa University is my university. Nevertheless, there are few concern or some concern that I want to bring to your attention. Africa is a continent, not one country or one state. I call that because, one day during my itineration here, I happened to talk to a high school class and when I presented myself, one student, very excited, told me, "Mr. Akasa, I saw your president on the TV last night. Then I ask him, "Who was the president?" And this was his answer: "Mr. Nelson Mandela." (laughter) So, many of us, or many of you still consider Africa like one country. Africa is not one country, is a whole continent.

Number two, Africa is multi-language continent. The predominant language, French, Arabic, English, Portugese. The establishment of The United Methodist Church in my country, [unintelligible] Zaire, brought light, hope, love as Christ's gifts. And after the arrival of the first missionaries, churches were built, school, clinic established. And even today The United Methodist Church is still have [unintelligible] evangelisation, education, and health. And the local church is working harder and harder. And that's love; for example: In central, in Zaire, we have about 854 elementary schools, 238 high schools, three teacher training schools, two seminaries, and all that are United Methodist religious schools.

BISHOP LEE: May I call to your attention that your time is about up. If you could bring this to a conclusion.

UMEMBUDI: Yes, Bishop. The petition of the Africa University has shift the attention of the church, the global church away from all existing high education institutions. What are our requests? Our request is to see Africa University being like one body. And I take this like example: The Africa University being like a blanket to cover the body, which is the Africa high education system. And when you wrap the system, if and you have a thick, very thick cover, if one leg is outside the cover, you still feel cold. So, would like to consider if there should be some means that Africa University be like umbrella for all the higher education institutions in Africa, that will have every country in Africa. Thank you.

BISHOP LEE: Thank you. (applause) As you have probably noted, the agenda this evening is to take up calendar items that we really were supposed to be dealing with this afternoon. We'll pick up where we left off this afternoon, and I call on Independent Commissions, Carl Stewart, and then perhaps Cashar Evans will want to come on to his place for Financial Administration, as well as the Discipleship group, Paul Ervin and Don Pike for Church and Society. All right, Judge.

CARL STEWART (Louisiana): Thank you, Bishop. We will consider Calendar Number 781. That'll be found on page 258 of your DCA. It is Petition 21726 and is found on page 931 in the Advanced Edition One, your red book. The petition involves the establishment of a Commission on Pan-Methodist union. This is a companion piece to the COCU petition that was presented this morning. In essence, the study commission, which has been in place since 1994, requests that the four general conferences of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, and the United Methodist Churches, move further towards reunion. And to that end, the creation of a commission on union is represented. The petition in your DCA spells out the particulars for it. And, as a committee, this matter was voted unanimously in favor, and we recommend concurrence with the petition. Bishop, I so move.

BISHOP LEE: All right, it is before you. Calendar Item 781. All right, I believe this goes directly to GCFA because there is money involved once it has been voted on.

STEWART: The matter in the monetary amount indicates that all four of the general conferences have agreed to have a pro rata share. It's my understanding that those monetary amounts are already taken care of, but otherwise this matter would go to GCFA.

BISHOP LEE: All right, it is before you. I do not see anyone asking for the floor, so you will vote please when the light appears. [767 approved] And the committee is sustained in its judgment of concurrence. And it will go to GCFA. All right.

STEWART: All right, thank you, Bishop. Next, we will consider Calendar Item 782. Also, found on page 258 of the DCA. It is Petition 20084, found on page 901 of your red book.

This petition is also a part of the ecumenical piece. It pertains to ecumenical relations and it would be a constitutional change. Paragraph five of the Discipline would be amended to add the language, "and covenantal relationships with" to the language of Article Five on page 22 of the Discipline. This petition, in essence, just provides the necessary language to make the disciplinary language conform to the action that we've taken earlier. The committee recommends concurrence, and I so move.

BISHOP LEE: All right, it is before you. You say that it is a constitutional amendment, so it'll take a two-thirds vote.

STEWART: Yes, sir.

BISHOP LEE: I do not see anyone requesting the floor. You will please vote when the light appears. [792 approved] The committee is sustained.

STEWART: All right, thank you, Bishop. That's all I have at this time.

BISHOP LEE: Thank you very kindly. We turn now to Financial Administration, Cashar Evans.

CASHAR EVANS (North Carolina): Bishop, I'd like for you to recognize Grady Knowles, from Cal-Nevada to present the pensions portion, please.

BISHOP LEE: Very good, Grady Knowles.

GRADY KNOWLES (California-Nevada): Good evening. The pension and benefit sub-section of the Financial Administration Committee brings you four petitions tonight. The first one is found in the blue DCA on page 136. It's in the left column at the top. It's Calendar Item 145. The text of this petition is found in the red DCA on page 376, in the right hand column, half way down. It's Petition 21484. This is one of several petitions that replaces the current language in the Discipline regarding the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits. That section of the Discipline is being restated and updated. This particular paragraph is about the authorizations of the General Board. This new language distinguishes between the mandatory benefit programs of the church: the Ministerial Pension Plan, the Comprehensive Protection Plan, and the Staff Retirement Benefits Fund; and the voluntary plans: the Cumulative Pension Benefit Fund, the Basic Protection Plan and others, such as the HealthFlex plan. It indicates that the board can create new voluntary plans, can amend the voluntary plans to keep up with the needs of constituents. It also indicates that, in response to GCFA and others, the board can receive and invest non-employee benefit-related monies. It clarifies that the General Board may not use general church funds for administration or operation.

The petition comes to you from the committee with a recommendation for concurrence. The vote was 101 in favor, one against, one abstention. It was on the Consent Calendar, but it has been lifted from the Consent Calendar, and it is before you now for your consideration.

BISHOP LEE: All right, Calendar Item 145. The gentleman standing, please go to microphone 6.

FRANK E.TROTTER, JR. (Baltimore-Washington): I would like to move an amendment on the tenth line of Petition 21484 on page 376. After the sentence that ends with the word "families," to insert the following sentence, "subject to the provisions of paragraph 2506, herein, the General Board shall perform its duties and responsibilities in the spirit of the church's mandate for inclusiveness and racial and social justice." If it's seconded, I would like to speak to it.

BISHOP LEE: Is there a second? I hear a second. You may speak.

TROTTER: Bishop, this sentence is in conformity with language that is already presently in the 1992 Book of Discipline. It allows for the church to remember its' stand on inclusiveness and justice with regards to racial and social issues. And this language has been concurred with by, as Grady can tell, by members of the General Board.

BISHOP LEE: All right, are there others who would wish to speak?

KNOWLES: Just to confirm, there was great discussion in the legislative committee about the changes in the language of inclusivity in this paragraph and some others. There was a change. At first there was some concern over the legal matter of exclusive purpose, which the board is subject to, but this is wording which has been worked out, with the concurrence of legal staff and others, and it's the decision of those who study such matters that this language balances the legal concerns of the General Board and the concerns of the General Commission on Religion and Race.

BISHOP LEE: All right, it is properly before you. You are voting on the amendment. Yes, I see a card here at the front. If you will go to microphone 2, please. I believe if we follow our rules, you would have to speak against this, even though the chairperson of the subcommittee has already spoken against it.

CHRISTOPHER H. ANDREWS (Louisiana): I really have a question more than a speech for or against, and the question is, in the language as you have presented it, not as the motion has amended it, what is exclusive in the language? What am I missing here? Why do we continually have to edit things, to add something in that by implication is not there?

KNOWLES: The General Board of Pensions has a dual role in the life of the church. It's first responsibility is as a fiduciary to all of the plan participants, and the charge of any fiduciary is to carry out its operation for the exclusive benefit of participants. They call that the exclusive rule, and any fiduciary that manages funds on behalf of others is subject to that. On the other hand, the General Board of Pensions is an agency of the United Methodist Church, subject to the Social Principles and the other policies of the denomination, and so there is always a balancing that goes on between the two. And the investment committee and the full board, and, of course, others, have great concern that line is walked appropriately and fully. So, when this kind of language is discussed, the trick is to get language that reflects adequately and fully the concerns of the United Methodist Church, but that also carries out the responsibility of the fiduciary. And it seems in this particular discussion, that a good compromise has been struck.

BISHOP LEE: All right, now, the amendment is before you. I believe you're ready to vote on that. The amendment is to amend by inserting words that were given, and I don't have that before me, but I think you heard those words. Does the secretary have--would you read those for us please.

CAROLYN MARSHALL (General Conference Secretary): Following the word "families" insert the following sentence: "Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2506, herein, the General Board shall perform its duties and responsibilities in the spirit of the church's mandate for inclusiveness and racial and social justice."

BISHOP LEE: Thank you. All right, we're ready to vote. If you will support this amendment you will vote yes, and you will please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 515; no, 384] All right, the amendment is added. These words have been inserted. It is now before you, Calendar Item 145. I believe you are ready to vote on that. If you will vote, please, when the light appears. [829 approved] And now then, it has been approved. All right.

GRADY KNOWLES: Thank you. The next item in the blue DCA is on page 234. It's in the right hand column at the bottom. It's Calendar Item 757. The text of the item is in the red DCA on page 386, in the left column at the bottom. This is Petition 20953. It deals with eligibility for the Comprehensive Protection Program or CPP; specifically, eligibility of student local pastors. Presently student local pastors and part-time local pastors are not eligible for CPP. Full-time local pastors are, and conference members, ordained conference members, are eligible. This petition would have some student local pastors eligible for CPP coverage, while others are not. The intention of the petitioner is that, if a pastor has been serving a church and returns to seminary part time so they are no longer eligible for the plan, that they remain eligible for the plan. In our committee discussion, the General Board staff was unable to advise the committee on the cost implications related to the request, although there was some initial response that there was some potential for adverse selection. When an entire group is given eligibility for a plan, there is less risk, apparently, than if some people can choose and other cannot. Another problem the committee had with the petition is that it does not indicate who the plan sponsor would be, who would pay the bill.

And, finally, I guess, more importantly, the committee struggled with the fact that some student local pastors would have eligibility and others, perhaps even at the same seminary and appointed under the same provisions in the same annual conference, would not. For these reasons, the committee voted nonconcurrence. Recommendation comes to you for nonconcurrence. The vote was 84 in favor of nonconcurrence, eight against, and two abstaining.

BISHOP LEE: All right, it is before you. I believe you are ready to vote. Please vote when the light appears. [829 approved] All right, the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence is approved. Grady, if I might ask you please, the initials CPP, MPP, we have some who don't immediately understand that.

KNOWLES: Thank you. CPP stands for the Comprehensive Protection Plan. It is a welfare plan that covers clergy of the denomination providing death benefits, long-term disability benefits, survivor benefits, and a pensions supplement for those pastors whose salary is below the denominational average. MPP stands for the Ministerial Pension Plan, the plan that covers clergy.

The third out of four petitions is noted in the blue DCA on page 235. It is Calendar Item 758. It is in the left hand column. And for the text of this you need to turn to your white Volume Two edition of the Advance DCA. The text appears on page 1322. On page 1322, it's at the bottom of the left column. It's Petition 22639, a petition from an individual that would suggest amending what the petition calls the Policies and Procedures Manual of the General Board of Pensions, to change the required beginning date for the distribution of tax deferred annuities.

There was some discussion in the legislative committee because the concept is appealing. Unfortunately, the plan documents that we have already take full advantage of the law in this regard. And this petition states that it, that we could take advantage of an action of Congress. In fact, the case noted is a private ruling letter by the IRS. We learned that a private letter ruling cannot be relied on by anyone outside of that individual case, and that the board could not rely on it, and would have to seek its own private ruling letter, and so on. It also wasn't clear that this kind of ruling letter in that case could be applied to our plans. And so on.

There were other concerns about the cost of administering that kind of a change versus the number of individuals who would want it. And as a result, since there was some interest in the concept, the committee brings to you a recommendation for referral to the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits for study. The vote of the committee was 95 in favor of referral, seven against, and zero abstaining.

BISHOP LEE: All right, Calendar Item 758 is before you. Its a recommendation for referral to the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits. I believe you are ready to vote. Please vote when the light appears. [893 approved] The committee's recommendation for referral has been approved. Thank you.

KNOWLES: The final item can be found in the blue DCA on page 235, the left hand column about half way down. It is Calendar Item 759. The text of the petition is in the red book on page 365, the left column at the top. It is Petition 21628. This petition would allow for the elimination of the Conference Board of Pensions, and it was good discussion on this item, and while there was, the committee was sympathetic with the overall movement that we have been pursuing to simplify and to streamline, in this particular case, the committee decided that there is a helpful division of responsibilities when there is a separate Conference Board of Pensions required.

Having a Conference Board of Pensions provides for greater attention to these plans at a time when health care plans are becoming much more complex and there are many more options coming to us in these plans. And it was also noted that having a Conference Board of Pensions facilitates the communication between the General Board and the annual conference, as well as between the annual conference and the active and retired clergy who, as near as we were able to determine, have in some cases, different needs.

And so, the committee concluded that the Conference Board of Pensions is a useful part of our structure, and that we would do well to retain it. And as a result, the recommendation from the committee comes to you for nonconcurrence with this petition. The vote is 91 in favor, 10 against, zero abstentions.

BISHOP LEE: Calendar Item 759. The recommendation is nonconcurrence. I see a card. Please go to microphone 2 or 7, whichever one is more convenient.

VICTOR GOLDSCHMIDT (North Indiana): Question to the presenter. There is a second part to that, I don't know if it is relevant or not, which says in accordance with paragraph 719. So you are addressing two topics under this petition, but you're commenting on only one part. Could you indicate whether the second part, 719 is relevant?

KNOWLES: Yeah, just a moment. Let me get a Discipline. Oh, I see. The second part of the recommendation is that the members of the Conference Board of Pensions be persons who are not in any way indebted to the pension and benefit funds. Paragraph 719 refers to the apportionments for pension benefits funds. It would be difficult to get clergy on the Conference Board of Pensions without having someone on who's indebted to pension benefit funds. I would say, though, Victor, to be fair in your question, I think the discussion in the committee was mainly on the need for the agency. We stopped short of a full discussion on that particular matter, because a decision had been made on the first part for nonconcurrence.

BISHOP LEE: All right. You seem to be ready to vote. This is Calendar Item 759. The committee's recommending nonconcurrence. You will please vote when the light appears. [869 approved] The committee is supported in its recommendation.

KNOWLES: Thank you.

BISHOP LEE: Thank you.

CASHAR EVANS (N. Carolina): Page 235 in the blue DCA. Calendar Item 760. Page 368 in the red book. The Petition 20416. It's in the first column, second item. The subject is "Fiscal Responsibilities." Committee recommends nonconcurrence. The vote 98 for, 11 against, zero abstaining. I move the adoption of the committee's recommendation.

BISHOP LEE: All right, the committee is recommending nonconcurrence on the Calendar Item 760. I believe you're ready to vote. If you are, please vote when the light appears. [847 approved] The committee is sustained in its recommendation.

EVANS: Thank you.

BISHOP LEE: Thank you very kindly. Now before we ask the next presenter to come I must announce to you a thing I failed to announce earlier. In the second item that we dealt with this evening, Calendar Item 782, which had to do with constitutional amendment, the house did give approval to that in a percentage and in a vote that exceeded the two-thirds needed, and we need to have that as a part of our minutes. Thank you. Paul Ervin, Discipleship.

PAUL ERVIN JR. (North Carolina): Thank you, Bishop Lee. We have two items that were on the Consent Calendar that have been lifted and Greg Stover, who was chair of the baptism subcommittee, will give the report.

BISHOP LEE: All right, thank you.

GREGORY D. STOVER (West Ohio): Thank you, Paul. Bishop and members of the Conference, I would direct your attention in the blue DCA to page 133, Calendar Item 133. It's in the center column there on page 133. This refers to an item in your red DCA, page 946, Petition 21430. This particular petition deals with admission into the church, and it rewrites this paragraph in accordance with the understandings of the study, By Water and the Spirit. The section on Discipleship concurred with this petition as amended. 99 for, 1 against, and 1 abstention. This item was lifted from the Consent Calendar on which it had been placed.

BISHOP LEE: All right, Calendar Item 133 is before you. I see a card. Please go to microphone 2.

VICTOR GOLDSCHMIDT (North Indiana): The item that we are bringing to the attention of the General Conference is in part 2B of page 133 far right column. As you recall, we had a similar action before that we recognized that the call for baptism being non-repeated was addressed in the resolution which we already approved. And a previous petition which had the word "non-repeatability" within the proposed wording for the Discipline was not approved at that time. So the motion at this time will be to delete the sentence in 2B, last in that paragraph, starting with the word, "unlike" and continuing "unlike baptism, which is a once-made covenant which can only be reaffirmed or repeated, confirmation"... so and so forth. So that would be the motion to make this consistent with previous actions.

BISHOP LEE: All right. You're amending actually the report that is before us?

GOLDSCHMIDT: That's correct.

BISHOP LEE: Do I have a second to that? There is a second. Would you like to speak to it?

GOLDSCHMIDT: I spoke at this issue before and we're all tired. Thank you.

BISHOP LEE: Thank you for your consideration. All right, please go to microphone 4.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Bishop Lee, I apologize. You're still on that issue, aren't you?

BISHOP LEE: Yes.

SPEAKER: OK, I have a Point of Order, but I'll wait.

BISHOP LEE: All right. Thank you. We're dealing now with an amendment. I see a card in the back, please. Would you please go to microphone 12.

BILL CROUCH (North Texas): I would oppose the amendment because, as a matter of fact, this statement is not at all inconsistent with our previous action. The previous action was to suggest that these matters of requests for rebaptism be dealt with pastorally, and they certainly can be, as is the case here. We did not suggest that rebaptism is ever appropriate, ever appropriate, and so I oppose this amendment.

BISHOP LEE: All right. Thank you. We have had a speech in favor by the maker of the amendment and then a speech in opposition. Are there any others who would like to speak? All right, I believe you are ready to vote. The amendment is to delete the last sentence in 2B in the far right hand column of page 133 in the blue DCA. If you will support that amendment, you will vote, yes. Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 244; no, 674] It fails.

It remains as a part of the main motion that is before us, Calendar Item 133. You ready to deal with that now? I believe you are. If you will vote, please, when the light appears. [888 approved] The committee's recommendation of concurrence is approved. Thank you.

STOVER: I would now direct your attention in the blue DCA to page...

BISHOP LEE: Excuse me, just a moment. We did have a Point of Order. You'll ask for it later? All right, thank you.

STOVER: I will direct your attention in the blue DCA, now, to page 134. In the bottom right hand corner, Calendar Item 141. Red DCA on page 950. Petition 21441. This petition deals with the care of members and in particular, contains language related to the removal of persons from membership.

The Discipleship section voted to change the word three' in four places in this petition to the word two.' The effect of which would be to require two years of reading persons names and of seeking to re-enlist them prior to removal from professed membership rather than three years as it is now. The discipleship section voted concurrence with this petition as amended: 96 for; 4 against; and 1 not voting. However, we recognize that the Local Church section was dealing with some similar matters and in the midst of a conference with them it was agreed that we would lift our petition, so that Local Church would have an opportunity to review the action we had taken and decide if it concurred with that action. We understand that they have concurred, but we would like to request that Janice Huie, the chairperson of the Local Church section confirm that, or someone else from her section.

BISHOP LEE: All right, is Janice here, can someone else in that committee confirm it? Microphone 8.

HERSCHEL SHEETS (North Georgia): (I am) secretary of the Committee on Local Church. The Committee on the Local Church did approve that change.

BISHOP LEE: All right, thank you.

STOVER: Then, we move concurrence with this petition as amended.

BISHOP LEE: All right, we're dealing with Calendar Item 141, it is before you, as amended. The recommendation is concurrence. All right, you're ready to vote. Please vote when the light appears. [866 approved] The committee is sustained in its recommendation for concurrence.

STOVER: Bishop Lee and members of the conference, this concludes our report at this time.

BISHOP LEE: Thank you very kindly. All right, now we turn to Church and Society; Don Pike. If you'd hold just a moment, I see some cards back there. Go to microphone 14.

THELMA JOHNSON (West Ohio): Bishop, I'd like to make a motion to suspend the rules in order that we can allow the pages tomorrow morning to distribute educational materials on the Shalom Zone, because in the afternoon having a special guest, we don't think there'll be an opportunity to do this.

BISHOP LEE: All right, is there a second to that? All right, I think you want to do this and I'll follow the precedent set this afternoon. If you will approve suspending the rules for that purpose, please lift the hand. It clearly passes, thank you. All right, let's turn now to Church and Society.

DON PIKE (Central Texas): Bishop Lee, and all of us here gathered, I have six items that we will be dealing with. But before I begin them Bishop, if possible, I'd like to make one editorial correction. I understand when I reported yesterday, I had the spring wound a little tight, so I'll try to slow down tonight and help you to keep up. If you would turn in your blue edition of the DCA to page 142, Consent Calendar B02, in the middle column, Calendar Item 206. It reads in you printed document, "removal of reduction;" it should be "or," that will make a little more sense to you.

Now if you would turn in your blue DCA to page 130, we will be dealing with two calendar items found on that page. The first we will be dealing with is 103. This was removed from the Consent Calendar, and you will find the text of that petition in your red DCA on page 119, the original petition. You will notice that the committee has recommended concurrence as amended. This is a section on women and men, paragraph 71e, in the Discipline, found on page 91. The committee recommended concurrence, 89 to 4, and we still recommend concurrence.

BISHOP LEE: All right, Calendar Item 103 is before you. I see a card; please go to microphone 2.

VICTOR GOLDSCHMIDT: (North Indiana) I do apologize to the General Conference for again being standing before you. I wish I did not have to do this. I need to ask a question. What does the first sentence mean?

PIKE: I think that it simply says, I do not recall the subcommittee discussing exactly its rationale for that, but, that we're all equal people in God's sight.

GOLDSCHMIDT: It says that we have similarity in sexes. I don't understand that. May I move an amendment to delete that first sentence unless the presenter can explain to me what it means. I move deletion of the first sentence inasmuch as it cannot be explained to me.

BISHOP LEE: All right, there is a motion to amend. Is there a second? There is a second. Would you like to have another word?

GOLDSCHMIDT: I'll be glad to comment once it is explained to me, but, I've been married for 39 years and I don't think there is much similarity in our sexes. (laughter) And it does lead to a lot of intimacy.

BISHOP LEE: All right. I'll accept that as a statement in behalf of the amendment. (laughter)

PIKE: I think the committee...May I speak, Bishop? I think that when you look, it simply is saying that no matter whether we're male or female, that we're all the same in God's sight. That our human similarities, and not our differences, that are the important part. We are different, obviously, men and women, but that in terms of who we are in terms of our value and worth no matter what our gender, we are all valuable in God's sight. We would still maintain that this is a better statement.

BISHOP LEE: All right. Yes, if you would go to microphone 3, please. We're on the amendment to delete the first sentence in this proposed new sub-paragraph.

DAVID BANKS (North Carolina): I was on the subcommittee. As we were reflecting on this, we understood that the first sentence was reflecting the fact that between male and female there is an equality given to us. And that, while there is a division between the sexes, there nonetheless is an equality, a compatibility.

BISHOP LEE: Thank you. If you will please go to microphone 2. I believe if we follow our rules, you would need to speak in favor of the amendment. To delete.

CHRIS ANDREWS (Louisiana): To delete. Yes, I can do that.

BISHOP LEE: Yes.

ANDREWS: I think that the gentleman who spoke earlier raised a significant issue, and I don't think it has been answered. And I would also call attention to the body to another paragraph in this matter that says, "we especially reject the idea that God made individuals as incomplete fragments, made whole only in relationship to another." It seems to me that the story of creation is that it is not good for humans to be alone. And that we live in relationship and we are relational beings. And, that flies in light of the biblical witness as well as what the incarnation is, God's relatedness to us. So I add my voice to that earlier speech.

BISHOP LEE: All right. Thank you. We've had now two speeches both for and against. Yes, would you please go to microphone 4.

JAMES LAWSON (California-Pacific): First of all, on 103, you noticed that we amended this. We crossed out the word "relationship", and we put "in union with one another." And there the idea was to reject a common notion that men and women are fragmentary persons apart from a one-on-one relationship.

It is to try to indicate that God has made us in God's image, and that we can stand in union with others in a great variety of ways; with families, friends, community, congregation and like. The other issue here is that in the beginning God made mortals. God said, "Let us make a human being," God said, "Let us make human beings in our image," God said, and God made human beings, male and female, God made them. And God saw that it was good. Well this means that each of us has the image of God in us. In that sense that's the critical similarity from all accounts biblically. Then we all bleed the same, biologically, we all have the same DNA's. We have the same structures basically. The fact of our sexual difference is not what makes us human. We are, can be, intimately involved with each other in a great variety of ways.

In that sense, that first sentence does try to say that because we are made in the image of God, we can therefore be intimate with one another, and with all other kinds of people. We can build community and family and the rest and I wish that we would leave that statement in.

BISHOP LEE: All right, thank you. All right, if you will, please go to microphone 3. Now the last statement I would interpret as being in support of the committee report, so you have to speak in favor of the amendment, which is an amendment to delete.

GREGORY PALMER (East Ohio): I need your assistance. I think the sentence as it reads in the proposal before us is a poor one at best. However, I've been instructed by the spirit of responses from the committee. I'd like to propose an alternative rendering that catches up that spirit, and I need to know, parliamentarily, how to do that.

BISHOP LEE: We have an amendment already before us to delete that sentence, but we could take one other amendment.

PALMER: All right. Would it be an amendment by substitution at this point or..

BISHOP LEE: You would just be amending his proposal to delete by or giving a.. .

PALMER: All right, let me try it, and then you instruct me in the house, please. I would like the first sentence to read, rather than as it does, "we affirm, with scripture, the common humanity of male and female both having equal worth in the eyes of God."

BISHOP LEE: All right, is there a second to that? Would you like to speak to it?

PALMER: I think it speaks for itself.

BISHOP LEE: It speaks for itself, he says. Would you like to vote on the amendment to the amendment? I believe that you would. All right, the amendment is to, rather than delete, insert this new sentence for sentence number one. And if you approve this, that would become the main motion at that point; for that part of this report. All right, if you would please vote when the light appears.[857 approved] All right, that is approved, and that now becomes a part of the committee report. Yes, please come to microphone 3.

DAVID BANKS (North Carolina): It seems to me about two-thirds, almost three-quarters of the way down the words, "and to practice ethical self-determination," my recollection is that we deleted those words, but since it's not deleted here, I would move their deletion.

BISHOP LEE: All right, the amendment is to delete the words "ethical self-determination."

BANKS: It would begin with, put a period after justice. And the deletion would be "and to practice ethical self-determination."

BISHOP LEE: All right, is there a second to that? All right, it is seconded. It's before us if you would like to speak to it.

BANKS: That engendered a lot of discussion in the sub-committee, and in the end, I think we decided that we would go home to our local churches and probably few people would say I wonder why they didn't say "ethical self-determination" in the report? So in order to not confuse those at home, we felt it most wisely would be left out.

BISHOP LEE: All right, I see a card. If you would, please go to microphone 7.

CHUCK HEFLEY (North Indiana): I was the recorder for that group, and the only thing that was done was "ethical" was substituted for "moral" and it was left.

BISHOP LEE: All right, so the term "self-determination" would not be in there, but it is proposed as a part of this amendment. All right, please go to microphone 4.

ZANE SCOTT (Holston): I have a question, and perhaps a point after the question. We need to delete more than the words,"ethical self-determination," or the sentence won't make sense. I think we need to back up to the "and" immediately preceding that, and delete from the "and" forward.

BISHOP LEE: We need at this point to get a copy of that. As soon as we get that we're going to read it again. I'm a little confused myself.

SCOTT: I think what would be proposed when we get the copy, if we delete that idea, we ought to put a period right before the "and" which comes before "ethical self-determination," otherwise we're going to have a sentence that says " and of practice."

BISHOP LEE: Would you read it for us again, please? Microphone 3 please.

BANKS: The motion is to put a period after "justice" and delete the words "and to practice ethical self-determination."

BISHOP LEE: All right, a period after the word "justice" and then delete those next three words. All right, microphone 7.

HEFLEY: It is correct the way it is printed in the DCA, the blue copy. That's the way it was voted in the legislative group.

BISHOP LEE: All right, thank you. And we have an amendment now that would change that. Yes. Would you please go to microphone 7?

PHILIP R. GRANGER (North Indiana): I would urge the defeat of this amendment. It seems to me that if we do this, what we are doing is affirming sexual relations, healthy or unhealthy. We could be in a position of affirming relationships that have, at their basis, spousal abuse. We could be in the position of affirming relationships between dominating adults and minors. It appears that the church has an ethical responsibility to speak to society and say that, while we affirm that you should be practicing and receiving love in a spirit of self-determination, there are boundaries for our expression. There are such a thing as moral or ethical values. Therefore, I would urge the defeat of this amendment.

BISHOP LEE: All right, thank you. Microphone 8, please, if you will come.

JERRY SMITH (Southwest Texas): I would like to move the previous question on all that is before the house.

BISHOP LEE: I believe that is not quite in order. According to my count, we've had only one speech in favor of this amendment and one speech against it. We would have to have at least two on each side. No one else is trying to get the floor. We can certainly bring it to a vote on the amendment, but I see a card. Go to microphone 7, please.

JEAN-PIERRE DUNCAN (Wyoming): Point of Order, Bishop. I'm unclear as to what we had done in the vote concerning the first sentence.

BISHOP LEE: We have substituted a new sentence at that point.

DUNCAN: So that what we voted on was not an amendment to the amendment to delete, but rather to the committee report?

BISHOP LEE: Yes, it was an amendment to the whole thing, but it was a substitution, an amendment by substitution.

DUNCAN: All right, thank you.

BISHOP LEE: Thank you. All right, I believe you are ready to vote on this amendment. May I ask the secretary to read that for us, please, one more time?

CAROLYN MARSHALL: Move deletion of the words, "and to practice ethical self-determination."

BISHOP LEE: All right, with a period after "justice." Let me call on the chair of the committee to see if he would like to have a word.

DON PIKE: I believe the committee would much prefer that we leave the language the way it is, because it simply declares, if you read that, "we seek for every individual opportunities and freedom to love and be loved, to seek and receive justice, and to practice ethical self-determination." I really have difficulty finding fault with that. I urge you to support it.

BISHOP LEE: All right, thank you. It is before you, Calendar Item 103, and we are on the amendment only at this point to delete those words, "to practice ethical self-determination" and place a period after "justice." If you will support that amendment, you will vote yes. Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 307; no, 602;] The amendment does not carry. Back now to the main report, 103, and it has been amended to insert a new sentence at the beginning. Microphone 8. Yes, if you'll go there, please.

JERRY J. SMITH (Southwest Texas): Bishop, I move the previous question on all that is before us.

BISHOP LEE: All right. I believe you're ready for that. I'm going to ask, if you will support the call for the previous question, please lift the hand. That previous question is definitely called for. So Calendar Item 103 is before you. The recommendation is for concurrence as amended. Would you like to have any word?

PIKE: No further word.

BISHOP LEE: No further word from the chair person. So if you're ready to vote, please vote when the light appears. [766 approved] The committee's recommendation for concurrence is sustained. All right. Thank you.

PIKE: Continuing on page 130 of the blue DCA, we now turn to Calendar Item 104. You will find that in your red DCA on page 122. Petition 20922. You'll find that at the bottom right hand column. The subject is divorce. You will notice in Calendar Item 104 that the recommendation is concurrence as amended. This is dealing with paragraph 71 in the Discipline found on page 91. The paragraph there is likewise entitled "Divorce." The committee is recommending what you find printed in the blue DCA as a substitution for what now presently exists in the Discipline. We recommend its concurrence.

BISHOP LEE: All right. Calendar Item 104 is before you, recommendation for concurrence. Yes, would you please go to microphone 1?

HARRIET JANE OLSON (Northern New Jersey): I sought to remove this item from the Consent Calendar in order to raise concerns about how we use or don't use scripture. With this issue in mind, I'd like to move that this General Conference request the General Board of Discipleship to consider and prepare resource materials to lead the church in a study of how we use scripture in making life decisions on issues like this issue of divorce and remarriage; and further, that the board consider language to be proposed to the General Conference of the year 2000, that might be added to paragraph 71D, reflecting a response to the biblical witness. If I have a second, Bishop, I'd like to speak to it.

BISHOP LEE: All right. I'm struggling with this. I hear what you're requesting. It would seem to me that maybe that would be an additional item to come after this particular matter has been dealt with because you're asking the General Board of Discipleship to create some materials and resources. Would you be willing to take it after we have dealt with this, because we're dealing now with the calendar item.

OLSON: Yes, sir. You'll come back to me when we're ready?

BISHOP LEE: I certainly will.

OLSON: Thank you.

BISHOP LEE: All right, this item is before you. You seem to be ready to vote. Calendar Item 104, recommendation of concurrence. Please vote when the light appears. [842 approved] All right, the committee recommendation for concurrence is supported, and Mr. Chairman, if you would, let me take this other motion at this time, since it's related to this matter. If you would just give us briefly that motion again?

OLSON: Yes, sir. I move that this General Conference request the General Board of Discipleship to consider and prepare resource materials to lead the church in a study of how we use scripture in making life decisions on issues like this question of divorce and remarriage; and further, that the board consider language to be proposed to the General Conference of the year 2000 that might be added to 71D, reflecting a response to biblical witness.

BISHOP LEE: All right. Thank you. Is there a second? There is a second. Would you like to have any other words to speak to it?

OLSON: If I may.

BISHOP LEE: Yes.

OLSON: This proposed revision of 71D does not make any attempt to address or integrate Jesus' teaching on divorce into the Social Principles. You might want to look at texts like Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10 at some time at your leisure. We do not currently provide adequate support for persons dealing with these questions. If we do not provide guidance on these issues--I have had the opportunity to walk miles this year with a member of my congregation as she has tried to struggle with this question in her own life. On the other hand, we see the church today taking a firm stand on scriptural references drawn from the Old Testament Holiness Codes and from some of the Pauline letters that we feel preclude us from including the ministry of some among us.

We need help in resolving our schizophrenia about the use of the biblical texts. How many of you have had a member of your youth group dismiss the position of the church or the relevance of scripture because of the charge that we only attend the passages that support our own perspective? I believe that statements like the language of 71D open us up to this accusation. Please support this request for study and resourcing. We desperately need assistance in this matter which will assist in our efforts to integrate scripture on this issue and other issues with integrity.

BISHOP LEE: Thank you. It is before you. I believe you're ready to vote. If you will support this motion, which includes a recommendation to the Board of Discipleship for study and resourcing on this particular issue, you'll please vote yes. Please vote when the light appears. [728 approved] And that is approved. Thank you very kindly. Mr. Chairman.

DON PIKE (Central Texas): We now turn to page 234 in your blue DCA. Page 234, and on that page in the center column, you will find Calendar Item 752. The subject is science and technology. The petition, which is addressed in that calendar item, will be found on page 117 of your red DCA; 117 in your red DCA. It is Petition 20921. You will find that located in the right hand column, second from the top. Petition 20921. It addresses disciplinary paragraphs 70E found on the page 89 in the Discipline. The committee recommends concurrence as amended by a vote of 81 to seven as we delete the existing first paragraph of 70E and substitute the text which you see printed in Calendar Item 752. We recommend concurrence as amended.

BISHOP LEE: All right, it is before you. I see a card. If you will please go to microphone 8.

JEREMY VETTER (Nebraska): I move to amend by substituting the following for paragraph 70, section E. "We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God's natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world, although we preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues. We recognize technology as a legitimate use of God's natural world when such use enhances human life and enables all of God's children to develop their God-given creative potential without violating our ethical convictions about the relationship of humanity to the natural world. In acknowledging the important roles of science and technology, however, we also believe that theological understandings of human experience are crucial to a full understanding of the place of humanity in the universe. Science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible."

BISHOP LEE: All right, is there a second to that amendment? There is a second. Would you like to speak to it?

VETTER: Yes, I would like to. I apologize for the length of this amendment, but the current language, I think, is unsatisfactory for two reasons. First of all, I think, as a church it's important that we give our support to science. There are many religions both in history and in current times who like to reject science and challenge its claims in ways that question the validity of what most of us accept as scientific discoveries. I think it would be a good thing for our church to go on record as being compatible with science. And the second element that is incorporated that goes beyond what is in the present language is to expand our understanding of what it means for science and theology to be compatible with each other. And I think that's a very good statement to say that without theology, science is incomplete, and without science, theology is incomplete in a sense of understanding our world to the fullest extent of the human potential of discovery.

BISHOP LEE: All right, thank you. [applause] Now I know that you appreciate his effort in that. I do hope, though, that we will refrain from any applause because everyone needs to have a right to hear their voice. Now, or make their voice heard, may be a better way to put it. [laughter] All right. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition. It is an amendment by substitution. Yes, if you would please go to the nearest microphone, and I will try to call the number. Yes, microphone 1.

WILLIAM D. SCOTT III (Mississippi): I chaired the subcommittee on the Church and Society Legislative Committee that dealt with this issue. While I'm not totally opposed to some of the wording of the proposed amendment, I am opposed to the rationale given for supporting that. I am a trained chemist, and I do know that science deals with things that are relative. And theology deals with things that are absolute. And if we get into the position of saying that science is absolute, then we're going to create science as a religion, and I'm opposed to that, and therefore, I would support the language as it is proposed by the legislative committee.

BISHOP LEE: Thank you very kindly. Yes. Please go to microphone 9. We've had a speech for and a speech against.

FRANK L. DORSEY (Kansas East): I want to speak for the amendment. Before going into ministry, I as a trained biologist. And I believe that Jeremy has set forth a holistic view of the relationship of science and theology. And I believe, in a growing era of fundamentalism, that we ought to confirm that kind of understanding, holistic understanding, that Jeremy has brought.

BISHOP LEE: Thank you very kindly. Is there anyone who would like now to speak against that amendment. Yes, I see a card in the back. Microphone 9, please.

BRIAN K. BAUKNIGHT (Western Pennsylvania): Bishop, I'd like to request, or maybe you can recommend that maybe we can postpone until we can see that resolution in writing that Jeremy gave us. I request that especially in light of the comment made over here at microphone 1 a little while ago. So I would move that we postpone until it can be printed in the DCA.

BISHOP LEE: That is in order. You have made a motion, then, to postpone any action on this until you have it in writing. Is there a second to that? There is a second. All right, I do not see anyone asking for the floor at this time, so I will ask you to vote on that proposal to postpone further action on this until we have it in writing. If you...please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 654; no, 259] And it has been postponed. All right, so we need to move on to the next calendar item, please.

PIKE: Right. Next Calendar Item is on page 234, Calendar Item 753. General and Complete Disarmament. The committee recommends concurrence as amended. It is petition number-- let me give you a DCA page. In the white DCA, page 1229. Petition 20059. You'll find it at the bottom of the right hand column. General and Complete Disarmament. The committee recommends concurrence as amended by a vote of 74, nine, and four.

BISHOP LEE: All right. That is before you. Recommended concurrence as it has been amended by the committee. You seem to be ready. All right, if you will please vote when the light appears. [754 approved] It has been supported. All right.

PIKE: Our next item is on page, calendar--DCA blue, page 234, Calendar Item 754, first in that column. The text of the petition is in your white DCA, page 1255. It is resolution 20062, left hand column, bottom of the page under other resolutions. The committee by a vote of 83 to six recommends nonconcurrence.

BISHOP LEE: Calendar Item 754 now is before you. You seem to be ready to vote. If you will please vote when the light appears. [704 approved] Committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence is sustained. Thank you.

PIKE: Likewise, on page 234 of the blue DCA, Calendar Item 755, middle of the page, right hand column. You will find the text for that in your white DCA, page 1230. It is Petition 22328, left hand column, second from the top. The committee, by vote of 72 to 14, recommends nonconcurrence on the grounds that what is being suggested there is adequately covered in a number of other places.

BISHOP LEE: All right. Calendar Item 755 is before you. Recommendation of nonconcurrence. I believe you are ready. You'll please vote when the light appears. And it has been sustained. [798 approved]

PIKE: I think, Bishop, that concludes our report for this evening.

BISHOP LEE: All right, thank you very kindly. I see a card in the center section here. If you'll please go to microphone 8.

BETTE T. TRUMBLE (Nebraska): I move that the information from my minority report on Calendar Item 764 be referred to the Connectional Process Team for their consideration.

BISHOP LEE: Is there a second? There is a second, and that is in order. All right, it is just a matter of reference. I see a card in the rear. If you'll go to microphone 15, please, or whichever is closer. Fourteen.

THELMA L. JOHNSON (West Ohio Conference): Help me to understand something. I thought yesterday we voted that articles' votes that had 10 or less, that we would not do unless they were pulled from the Consent Calendar. And yet we have done those that had six against, eight against, nine against. I don't quite understand.

DON PIKE: I can explain it. These were all acted on before you made that rule. Once something is published in the DCA, we have to wait a full day before we can report on them. Everything that is printed in today's DCA conforms to that 10 negative vote rule. But we cannot report on them until tomorrow. So there is a one day lag. So this all happened before you passed that rule.

JOHNSON: So tomorrow we should have it that way.

BISHOP LEE: That is correct. Now let me remind you, we do have a motion on the floor, and that motion is simply to refer the minority report that was attached to Calendar Item 764, and I believe that is the item that was defeated, maybe this afternoon, I do not remember exactly when. But the item is to just simply refer it as a matter of information to that particular committee that will be created. All right, are you ready to vote on that? If you will refer that material, please vote when the light appears. [702 approved]

All right, the motion to refer has been passed. Now we've been here about an hour and a half. We've got another hour to go, well, you've already taken up five minutes of that hour. I would like to suggest that perhaps we just take a standing break for about two and a half minutes. Please do not leave the room, but stand and stretch, if you will.

BISHOP LEE: All right, will you please come to order now? Thank you. Will you please be seated? Thank you, we are ready to begin now. Dear friends, we cannot begin until you are seated, please. And if you would please close your conversations. All right, I have a recognized card here. Come to microphone 4. This was the earlier request for a point of order. Microphone 4. Would you please? All right, thank you, we're ready now.

CHARLES E. LIPPSE (Holston Conference): Thank you, Bishop Lee, I do have a point of order to raise in regard to the Plan of Organization and Rules of Order, page 99, Rule 13. I rose a while ago, but I realized it would be best to wait until we were between dealing with other legislative matters. It's not that immediate, but I do want it to be addressed this evening. At the time I rose, we had just received a packet of material on our desks, and it came to other delegations as well, from an unofficial group. And this is the "Open the Doors" group, and this is the third time in this General Conference that the point has been made that unofficial material is being distributed to the desks. Now if that rule says that groups that do that can be prohibited from distributing any other material, I think it's time to take that action. And that's my appeal of the point.

BISHOP LEE: All right, thank you. We are sorry that the rules have not been followed as we have already discussed earlier in our sessions. We would ask the cooperation of all groups at this point to do what has been done. If you have something that is imperative to be distributed to the delegates, that you ask for the suspension of the rules and do it that way. Thank you for your bringing that to our attention. All right, I see a card in the very back of the section C, I believe. If you will go to microphone 14.

JUDITH HILL (Central Pennsylvania): Bishop Lee, I would like to move limiting debate on the pro and cons of these speeches to two each, effective Wednesday morning. Let me have a second.

BISHOP LEE: All right, just a moment, please. All right, that is a proper motion, and the motion is to limit debate to two persons on each side of the question. Did I understand that right, Judith?

HILL: Yes.

BISHOP LEE: All right, and it has been seconded. Would you like to make a statement? I believe you said that would be effective tomorrow morning.

HILL: Yes. Tomorrow morning. You know, during the past General Conference meetings, on the last day, someone always moves to refer all of the remaining items to appropriate committees, and we have much to discuss. And I think, in all fairness to the legislative committees, I believe that we should respect the work of the legislative committees and the work they've committed thus far. Thank you.

BISHOP LEE: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to speak on the other side? I see a card here. If you will please go to--microphone 7, I believe, is the nearest one.

GARNETT M. WILDER (North Georgia): I believe this motion at this time is premature because the two most crucial issues before this conference have yet to come before us. And to limit discussion and debate on those two issues, namely homosexuality and the structure and ministry of the church, must have full attention by this body.

BISHOP LEE: All right, thank you. All right, I believe you're ready to vote at this point. There's a motion to limit debate to two persons on each side of the question to be effective tomorrow morning. If you will support that you would vote yes. If you do not, you would support no. Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 356; no, 522] The motion fails, and we will be under the regular rules. Now I see one other card here. You will come to microphone 9.

ROBERT SWEET (New England): Bishop Lee, in order to save time tomorrow, I would like to move to suspend Rule 28--sorry. I move to suspend Rule 28(6) on page 104 of the Advance DCA, changing the number five to ten beginning with the Wednesday morning session. In addition, that those items with five signatories by three o'clock today be given until noon tomorrow to gain five additional signatures.

BISHOP LEE: I believe we have already acted on at least the first part of your motion, have we not? If I've not...I am not looking at the rule; will you ...

SWEET: This rule, sir, refers to the number of signatures that are required to lift from the Consent Calendar. The motion I did yesterday, I'm afraid, was incomplete, which only dealt with the number of dissenting votes in the committees.

BISHOP LEE: All right, read it for us one more time. What is the amendment to this standing rule?

SWEET: That standing rule 28(6) on page 104 in the Advance DCA, that we change the number five, which is the number of signatures required to lift an item from the Consent Calendar, to ten, beginning with the Wednesday morning session. In addition, that those items that had five signatures by three o'clock today be given until noon tomorrow to gain five additional signatures.

BISHOP LEE: All right, my advisers tell me that we need to suspend the rules in order to do that at this time. So your first motion is to suspend the rules for that purpose?

SWEET: I so move.

BISHOP LEE: All right, is there a second? Second. I believe you are ready. If you will vote to suspend the rules for this purpose, then you will please vote yes, or if you are against it vote no. Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 579; no, 301] I do not have a two-thirds vote at this point; we have not suspended the rules. Thank you. All right, now we need to move to the calendar items, and they come next for Higher Education and Chaplaincy. Dr. Allen Norris.

ALLEN J. NORRIS (North Carolina): Thank you, Bishop. I would refer you to the blue book, page 256, Calendar Item 772. The petition may be found in the white book, page 1381. Calendar Item 772 is titled "Requirements for Church Affiliation in Institutions of Higher Education." The legislative committee voted nonconcurrence by a vote of 55 to 24 with one abstention. Rationale that is based on the prevailing belief that the Discipline should not place policy restrictions on individual institutions. Bishop, there is a minority report to be presented by Stefanie Gray.

BISHOP LEE: All right, we will have the minority report presented. Then we will come back to perfect the majority report, then perfect the minority report, then give you an opportunity to debate it, then vote. All right, if you will give your minority vote.

STEFANIE A. GRAY (California-Pacific): Thank you. Paragraph 1519.4, according to the minority report, would read: "To qualify for affiliation with The United Methodist Church, institutions must maintain appropriate academic accreditation and protect the civil and basic rights due to all persons regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or physical disabilities." The difference--do I speak to it now or just present it?

BISHOP LEE: I'm sorry?

GRAY: Can I speak to it now or do I present it?

BISHOP LEE: We would like for you just to interpret it to the group now, and then you will be given an opportunity to speak for it.

GRAY: OK, so I will just explain the difference between the minority report and the original petition that was nonconcurred in committee is that the minority report no longer requires United Methodist schools to have policies prohibiting discrimination of several sorts; however, it does make an effort to affirm the basic civil rights that are currently in our Social Principles for people at United Methodist schools and prospective United Methodist schools who are not treated in accordance to those Social Principles.

BISHOP LEE: All right, thank you. Now we will go back to the chairperson to see if there is any perfecting that you would like to do as a body to the main report, Calendar Item 772. The committee has recommended nonconcurrence. All right, I do see a card at the far right. Microphone 6, please.

DENNY WHITE (Western North Carolina): I think I know the answer to this before I ask it, but I want to ask it anyway as a procedural matter or enlightenment upon our rules. In our legislative committee we operated on the assumption that when a legislative committee came forth with a recommendation of nonconcurrence that a minority report was not in order because the substitute may not simply reverse the action of the committee. Now, the minority presented here is not precisely identical to the original petition, but it is so close as to call in my mind the question of whether, in fact, this minority report is in order. And I think for our enlightenment in future General Conferences it would be helpful to know what our rule really is in this situation.

BISHOP LEE: I believe you are correct at this point, that with the committee's vote of nonconcurrence this minority report would not be in order as a substitution. It is entirely possible in my thinking that it would be appropriate as an amendment. Perhaps this is the only way they felt they could change the text to make it acceptable. It is our judgment, in order for this minority report to be properly before us, the body would first of all have to reject the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence. Then that would make it possible for the group to concur. But before we actually acted so that they could concur, we could take that as an amendment.

NORRIS: The committee is recommending nonconcurrence, Bishop, based on the prevailing belief that the Discipline should not place policy restrictions on the institutions.

BISHOP LEE: All right. So this is before you, and you understand what you would have to do if you do want to consider this other material in the minority report as an amendment at a later time. All right. Recommendation is nonconcurrence. Calendar Item 772. You will please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 630; no, 275] All right, they concur with the committee's nonconcurrence. And the minority is now out of order.

ALLEN NORRIS: All right. Our next item is in the blue book again on page 256, Calendar Item 773. The petition may be found in the red book on page 823, the left hand column in the middle, Petition 20630. The title is, "Support of the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry." The committee voted nonconcurrence by a vote of 65 to 8, with 1 abstention.

I would point out to the body that this petition is similar to one that we considered yesterday or earlier, and this one would substitute the words "apportioned general program agency funds" for the words "world service monies as the source of support." The majority of the committee affirms World Service and we ask that you sustain the recommendation of nonconcurrence.

BISHOP LEE: All right. Calendar Item 773 is before you. I see a card. Please go to microphone 10.

DAVID LIVINGSTON (Kansas East): Actually, this is a Point of Order on 772, which we just discussed. What I'm wondering is, we didn't actually discuss 772. I'm not aware that there was ever an opportunity to discuss that. That's the one that we had the minority report on, and I'm sure that one of those 10 people who made that minority report would be willing to, or would want to discuss that. I think there was some confusion. I know there was some confusion on my part in regard to what exactly we were suppose to be doing in order to discuss that. So, I'm not sure if our votes to concur with that were actually in order at that point, without having a good opportunity to discuss it.

BISHOP LEE: Well, I'm very sorry. Don't feel that your confusion is just on your part. I was confused somewhat myself. However, before we did vote on the nonconcurrence, which I pointed out that you would have to defeat the committee's recommendation in order to take any part of the minority report, that I did give a chance for any...I looked around and I saw no one asking for the floor. So I'm sorry, but that action has taken place. All right, we're on Calendar Item 773. I believe you are ready to vote. The recommendation of the committee is nonconcurrence. Please vote when the light appears. [828 approved] The committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence is sustained.

NORRIS: The next item is also on blue book 256, Calendar Item 774. Red book, page 823, right hand column at the bottom, Petition 21278. The committee recommends concurrence by a vote of 58 to 16 with 4 abstentions.

BISHOP LEE: All right, Calendar Item 774 is before you.

NORRIS: Bishop, the rationale for recommending concurrence in this petition. The committee majority supports the involvement of the Division of Higher Education as facilitator in discussions between church-related institutions and the agencies of the church, when these agencies make inquiry into the work of the educational institution. Please note that the wording indicates that the Division of Higher Education should be involved. And, as liaison and bridge-builder, the Division's presence can be most helpful since most colleges are independent organizationally in terms of ownership. So we would recommend, sir, concurrence with this petition.

BISHOP LEE: All right, you seem to be ready to vote. Please vote when the light appears. [832 approved] The committee's recommendation is sustained.

NORRIS: Next item is Calendar Item 775 on blue book 256. The petition may be found in the white book beginning on page 1383 and continuing to 1384, Petition 22788, titled, "Funding the Evangelical Seminary of Puerto Rico." The committee recommends concurrence by a vote of 70 to 1 with 1 abstention. Concurrence as amended. And the amendment would apply as follows: in the paragraph following the "therefore" clause, which is on page 1384, beginning with number 1, delete the word "continue" and insert in its place the words, "give strong consideration to the continuation of." And the paragraph would continue to read in the same paragraph, you would delete the words "at the 1992 level."

And our rationale for this concurrence, as amended, the committee majority wishes to ask the Board of Higher Education and Ministry to give strong consideration to continued funding within its budget parameters, through the year 2000, to the Evangelical Seminary of Puerto Rico, without mandating the level of support. Therefore, we would recommend concurrence as amended.

BISHOP LEE: All right, it is before you, Calendar Item 775. Recommendation of concurrence as amended. Yes? Dr. Norris, does this remove the financial element from...

NORRIS: Yes, sir, it's really saying to the board, we recommend that you continue funding within your budget parameters.

BISHOP LEE: All right. Thank you for that clarification. I believe you're ready to vote. If you will please vote when the light appears. [884 approved] The committee action has been sustained.

NORRIS: Continue in the blue book on page 256, Calendar Item 776. The petition is in the white book on page 1380, the left column, the second item, Petition 22665, "Objectives of the Division of Higher Education." The committee recommendation is nonconcurrence by a vote of 67 to 13 with 1 abstention. The rationale for this recommendation of nonconcurrence is the content of the proposed addition pertains to seminaries, and therefore is really inappropriate to paragraph 1513 dealing with the Division of Higher Education objectives. And the general subject addressed is already a part of the University Senate criteria for theological schools.

Bishop, there is a minority report to be presented by Gregory McGarvey. I would say that again we have a committee recommendation for nonconcurrence. And I'm not sure how you want to take this, sir.

BISHOP LEE: All right. We're going to handle this the same way that we did a while ago. We'll give the person representing the minority report the opportunity to at least give us some interpretation, and then I will rule on whether or not it is in order.

NORRIS: All right.

GREGORY MCGARVEY (South Indiana): Thank you Bishop Lee, sisters, and brothers. Our opinion as members of the minority committee that by moving the words that are printed before you on page 256, "United Methodist Schools of Theology," though I'm sure the biblical, historical, and theological studies are faithful to the church's positions as stated in doctrinal standards in our theological task, to the end of paragraph 1531, carried the intent of the original author as well as making a good amendment to our Discipline.

BISHOP LEE: All right. I believe we are in exactly the same situation we were a few moments ago, and that is, this is really not in order at this point since the committee had voted nonconcurrence. The body can, if it desires, you can debate whether or not you want to vote nonconcurrence or not at this point or to support the nonconcurrence. But it's up to you as a body as to whether or not you want to support the committee or whether you do not want to support the committee. Now, that is open to debate at this time. That's the only issue that's open to us. Would your statement, Mr. Chairman, come at this point or would you want to have it at a later time? All right, a point of order, that would take precedence. Microphone 7, please.

WILLIAM C. CROUCH (North Texas): Perhaps this is a parliamentary inquiry. This petition addresses paragraph 1513, and the minority report asks to move to paragraph 1531. Is that in order?

BISHOP LEE: That is in order at this time. All right. Microphone 1, please. Or microphone 2 will be fine, since you're heading this way.

BRADLEY F. WATKINS (Central Illinois): I was a member of that committee, and the rationale given for minority reports for this particular minority report was given to us for both of these minority reports. The difference was not caught up in any particular paragraph, but because those particular persons were in disagreement with the action of the committee. And so, while we can do that kind of parliamentary procedure, the essence, the fairness of that, is that both of these petitions had minority points of view because they did not agree with the vote of the committee.

BISHOP LEE: Thank you. We are going to deal only with what is before us at this point. And I think I have explained to you that if you do in fact want to give support to what is in the minority report, that there is a way of doing that. But this matter of supporting the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence is the item that is before us now. And you wanted to have a statement.

NORRIS: All right. Let's ask the maker of the minority report. He would like to speak just as a delegate at this point.

MCGARVEY: Just speaking against nonconcurrence is all I'm allowed to do at this point?

BISHOP LEE: I believe that's right.

MCGARVEY: As United Methodists we are proud of our heritage and United Methodist schools of theology for training leaders for our great denomination. We recognize the vital role of United Methodist Schools of Theology in preparing outstanding leaders for today and into the 21st century. As we creatively seek to address the needs of individuals, communities, and congregations facing the challenges of culture in the present day, it is imperative that our United Methodist schools of theology be clear about our covenant as United Methodists.

United Methodists do not exist in a doctrinal vacuum. We do have fine standards that have withstood the ebb and flow of faddish theology and doctrine through the two centuries of our life. Our Discipline's doctrinal standards and our theological task section offers guidelines that, as United Methodist schools of theology do their work, they will find good guidelines. We are aware of the grass roots criticism of our United Methodist schools of theology. We seek to respond to their legitimate concerns. Many laity want assurance that their schools are keeping faith with our covenant as United Methodists.

Academic freedom is vital. This disciplinary change will not be a threat to academic freedom nor preclude the teaching other disciplines of religious thought.

However, teaching of other religions, thought, should be distinguished from Christian teaching. This is not a litmus test of doctrine and theology. A litmus test validates or invalidates based on one or a few criteria. We believe the breadth and depth of our Discipline's Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task are such that the document does not lend itself to a litmus test. So we ask the United Methodist seminaries would follow through on these and would share these, would allow them to be a part of the Discipline. So we would encourage you to vote against nonconcurrence.

BISHOP LEE: All right, thank you. I see a card here in the middle. Microphone three. This is a speech against.

JIM REED (Kansas West): A point of clarification, Bishop. My understanding, if we would vote against nonconcurrence, what we allow, in reality, are voting for, then, is the original as it appeared before the committee. Is that correct?

BISHOP LEE: That is correct, and you would have the opportunity to amend the original at that time.

REED: That's what I needed to be sure about.

BISHOP LEE: Thank you kindly. I saw a card at the rear. Please go to microphone 14, or...yes, that'll be fine.

SHAWN HARTMAN (Central Pennsylvania): I believe just not more than a few calendar items ago we specifically said that we did not want to put into our Discipline any criteria or rules for our schools. I believe this is, in essence, just doing what you voted against earlier.

BISHOP LEE: All right. I believe you are ready now to vote now on the question. I do see a card here. If you will please go to microphone two.

RICHARD PARKER (New York): I am so glad to be a United Methodist, and I am very glad that I am not a Southern Baptist. In spite of what the representative of the minority report says to us, my fear is that this is the beginning step of trying to evaluate the positions of theological professors and faculties and leadership in our seminaries and trying to so limit them that we might be in the position of never being open to theological diversity and never changing the standards which are already before us. I hope we will support the action of the committee.

BISHOP LEE: All right, thank you. All right, I see another card at the back. Please go to microphone 14. I believe the way our speeches are going, you would need to speak, please, if this is your position, in opposition to the committee recommendation.

WARNER H. BROWN JR. (California-Nevada): Parliamentary inquiry. The minority report is speaking to paragraph 1531, and if we should act to adopt this as a substitution, I am unclear what this will do with our main motion, which is addressing paragraph 1513.4.

BISHOP LEE: We would have to wait and see what amendment is made as to how it would finally affect it.

BROWN: Thank you.

BISHOP LEE: All right, I believe you're--All right, I do see, yes, a card, a green card. We haven't had one of those for a while. Would you go to microphone 13, please.

BILL HINSON (Texas): Mr. Chairman, I hope in the ecumenical spirit that we have shown this day, if we can avoid speaking of a sister denomination in a derogatory sense. We must be very careful that we not surrender any moral high ground that we might have had.

BISHOP LEE: Thank you. All right, I believe we're ready to vote. I'm going to turn now to the chairperson of the committee for a statement.

ALLEN NORRIS: Bishop, I'm assuming then that we are voting on the recommendation of the committee for nonconcurrence. Is that correct?

BISHOP LEE: That is correct.

NORRIS: And of course, the rationale really is that the content of the proposed addition pertains to seminaries and, therefore, is inappropriate to paragraph 1513 dealing with Division of Higher Education objectives.

BISHOP LEE: All right, thank you. Recommendation of the committee is nonconcurrence. We've had a discussion of what this involves. If you will please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 649; no, 229] The committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence is supported, so the other is not before us at this time. Thank you.

NORRIS: All right, the last item that we have to bring before you is blue book page 257.

BISHOP LEE: All right. Just a moment. I see a card. Is your's a point of order? All right, please go to microphone 2.

JARED NEWMAN (Rocky Mountain): I have a point of order pursuant to Rule 35 dealing with minority reports. It says that minority reports shall be represented as substitute for the committee reports. As I understand the committee reports, the committee's recommendation would be included in that. Therefore, a substitute motion to concur with a different petition would be, in turning to Rule 24, which says the substitute motion needs not to be a simply negation of the main motion, which it would not be. Therefore, I feel that the minority report was in order, and that we need to reconsider the issue, because it was not presented like it is supposed to be.

BISHOP LEE: I appreciate your concern, and this has been a problem for us this evening, but the point has to be made that the recommendation of the committee was not for concurrence, but for nonconcurrence. And so the minority report was not in order. You could have considered that if you voted down the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence, but the committee was sustained by the action of the house. Thank you.

NORRIS: Blue book page 257, Calendar Item 777.

BISHOP LEE: All right, point of order. Come to microphone 4, please.

DALE SEGREST (Alabama-West Florida): In the spirit of fairness, I must protest the ruling from the chair concerning the minority report. There was a definite difference in the minority report and the majority report, in that the rationale given for the majority report was that it was under the wrong paragraph. The minority report would have put it under the right paragraph. The minority report was entitled to receive attention, because of the fact that we might very well have voted on the basis that it was improperly placed.

BISHOP LEE: All right, thank you. All right, let's go to Calendar Item 777.

NORRIS: Calendar Item 777. The petition may be found in the white book page 1356. The left hand column at the bottom, Petition 22037, entitled, "The National United Methodist Native American Center." The committee recommends concurrence by a vote of 66 to 6 with 3 abstentions. Concurrence, with reference to GCFA, since this proposal includes a budgetary request in the amount of $316,000. It is the understanding of the committee in our deliberations that the center projects a budget of $640,000 of which two general boards have committed $324,000. GCFA would consider and recommend regarding the $316,000 balance needed. Therefore, we recommend concurrence with reference to GCFA.

BISHOP LEE: All right. This is before you. I see a card. Would you please go to microphone 3?

SAMUEL WYNN (North Carolina): Bishop, I would also call the attention to the conference, in the red book, to report number 14, page 643, Petition 21688. This is a report of the General Council on Ministries, over the quadrennium, of the work that's been done with the general agencies and the general secretaries trying to secure funding for the center.

This particular issue has been to this General Conference for 12 years. Each General Conference, we have voted to support the center. But there has always been the problem of funding, and it keeps coming up over and over, again and again. The center has a valid ministry. It is a ministry that is seeking to train persons for the ordained and diaconal ministries. And so I believe it is time for us in the church to say, "yes, we feel this is important," and to put some money to help the center continue the work that it has been doing for the past 16 years. I would encourage you to support this.

BISHOP LEE: All right. Thank you. I believe you are ready to vote. The recommendation of the committee is concurrence. Please vote when the light appears. [809 approved] The committee's recommendation is supported.

NORRIS: Bishop Lee, to my knowledge, this completes the work of the Legislative Committee on Higher Education and Chaplaincy. And I would like to thank the committee for its hard work and the body for your consideration of our work. Thank you, sir. [applause]

BISHOP LEE: Thank you. All right, we have arrived at that time for adjournment this evening. There are a number of announcements to be made and a couple of other committee reports to be heard from. I'd like to ask for Rex Bevins to please come with the report of the Presiding Officers Committee.

REX BEVINS (Nebraska): Bishop and members of the Conference, the presiding officers for Wednesday, April 24, are as follows: Wednesday morning, Bishop George Bashore of the Pittsburgh area; Wednesday afternoon, Bishop Clifton Ives of the West Virginia area; and Wednesday evening, Bishop Melvin Talbert of the San Francisco area.

BISHOP LEE: All right. Thank you very kindly. We'll hear now from the Committee on the Calendar and Agenda, Sarah Miller. Thank you for your enthusiasm. [laughter]

SARAH S. MILLER (Wyoming): I know you know who is coming tomorrow. Mrs. Clinton will be with us at 2:00. We'll also vote on nominees for the Judicial Council in the morning. And we have a heavy legislative agenda for tomorrow. In the morning, we'll consider legislation around the ministry study. In the afternoon, we're lumping together all items related to homosexuality. In the evening we'll discuss abortion.

Let me suggest that you be reminded of the offering for the 67 conference pages and 71 marshalls who have served us so very well. That offering will take place at the end of the morning session, so if you'll be prepared for that. And I'm asking the production crew to show us the percentage of petitions we've cared for so far. Thank you. We're coming along.

BISHOP LEE: We're on the way, but not very far. All right, we're going to call on the secretary in a moment for announcements, but I have been asked by Jim Perry of the Troy Conference for a matter of personal privilege. Where are you, sir? Yes, come into microphone 8.

JAMES M. PERRY (Troy): I rise for a moment of personal privilege to read to you the following: "Whereas, Green Mountain College in Vermont reaffiliated with The United Methodist Church in 1995; and whereas, this reaffiliation represented the end of a 25-year interruption in that relationship; and whereas, Green Mountain College and its predecessor institution, the Troy Conference Academy, church relationship began over 100 years ago; and whereas, Green Mountain College has become only the 5th institution of higher education in the U.S. and the first United Methodist-related institution to take as its primary mission, an environmentally-focused liberal arts curriculum; therefore, be it resolved that the 1996 General Conference acknowledge this reaffiliation and join with Troy Annual Conference and Green Mountain College in celebrating this renewed relationship.

BISHOP LEE: [applause] Thank you. If you approve that, let's applaud. [applause]

PERRY: Thank you, Bishop.

BISHOP LEE: I think you would want me to bring to your attention that today is a very special day. One of my colleagues that has been assisting me this evening reminded me of a birthday, and I thought he was talking about the fact that Bishop Felton May's birthday was today. But he says there's a better birthday for us to celebrate than even Felton May's birthday. And that is that 28 years ago today, at the General Conference session in Dallas, we became the United Methodist Church. (applause)

I thank Bishop Yeakel for reminding us of that. It is something we should not forget. We will call upon the secretary now for announcements.

CAROLYN MARSHALL: Two announcements. First, is that the Central Conference College of Bishops are requested to meet at the podium immediately following adjournment. The second one will be a bit of a guidance for us for tomorrow. As Sarah Miller, when she brought the report a few minutes ago from the Committee on Agenda and Calendar, mentioned, tomorrow afternoon Mrs. Clinton will be here. The timing for our day will be rearranged a bit, inasmuch as the morning session will adjourn at 11:30. We are requested, at that time, to remove all knapsacks, bags, any containers that you have of any kind. Books may remain on the tables, but we thought it might be well for you to have that information now, in case any of you wanted to take anything with you this evening. Just be aware that sometime between now and 11:30, all bags will have to be removed from the area.

BISHOP LEE: All right. Thank you. I want to thank the conference for your indulgence this evening. We've had a couple of difficult times, and I'm aware of the fact that some of you are frustrated. We believe that we've moved through these things, and you've done it with such a wonderful spirit. And I want to thank you for it, and I want to thank my two colleagues, Bishop Bruce Blake and Bishop Joe Yeakel, for their assistance this evening. And I've called on Bishop Christopher Jokomo to come and lead us in our closing prayer this evening. We've celebrated Africa University today. Africa University is located in Zimbabwe, and that is Bishop Jokomo's area. And I think it's fitting for him to come and to lead us in our closing prayer this evening. We'll ask you please to rise.

BISHOP JOKOMO: Let us join in prayer. (prayer)

General Conference Webmaster: Susan Brumbaugh
PETS Creator: John Brawn