Just got home...

[circuitrider]

I'm still a bit taken aback that you went as a voting member when your intention is to leave the Church.

 

[BryanW92]

I'm still a bit taken aback that you went as a voting member when your intention is to leave the Church.

I have a strong sense of duty. On my last day of working for my previous employer, I was finishing up a program change that improved the operation of a critical piece of machinery and teaching my replacement on how to tune the change, if necessary. I actually worked an hour overtime on my last day and then did my exit interview. My employer trusted me to do my job even though I was leaving.

A week before I left the US Navy, I was standing watch on an operating reactor plant. They knew I would do my job right up to the end. (I spent my last week out-processing because that's how the military worked.)

I am not the kind of lowlife who removes all the "W" keys from the keyboards when I leave a place. I'm the kind of person who will keep working for the church right up until I start working for another church.

 

[circuitrider]

Bryan,

I appreciate the level of commitment!

But there is a potential conflict of interest in voting on issues for a Church you intend to leave, unless you are planning to go to another UM Church. The impression I've gotten is you intend to leave the UMC.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I have a strong sense of duty. On my last day of working for my previous employer, I was finishing up a program change that improved the operation of a critical piece of machinery and teaching my replacement on how to tune the change, if necessary. I actually worked an hour overtime on my last day and then did my exit interview. My employer trusted me to do my job even though I was leaving.

A week before I left the US Navy, I was standing watch on an operating reactor plant. They knew I would do my job right up to the end. (I spent my last week out-processing because that's how the military worked.)

I am not the kind of lowlife who removes all the "W" keys from the keyboards when I leave a place. I'm the kind of person who will keep working for the church right up until I start working for another church.

Working is one thing. Directing policy is another. Not saying you're not capable of being objective despite your qualms about the church (I don't know you well enough to answer that!). But your example might explain why you'd still come back and wash dishes after the church supper like you signed up for or why you'd come to the church work day to lend a hand power washing the walls. I don't know that the examples fit circuitriders concerns about being a voting/policy-making member of the church. But it sounds like it was a commitment you made and you stuck to that which is admirable. As strange as it sounds; there's a big difference between dissenting with the denomination and voting to change it; and dissenting with the denomination, voting to change it, and leaving.

One just might be concerned that those who leave or intend to leave probably shouldn't be the ones with voting power. You're fine to dissent and disagree and want things change (that's about as Methodist as it gets); but to continue to be a voting member while intending to leave the denomination after casting your vote does seem a little "different" is all. Many of us don't view annual conference as work or an obligation; but a responsibility for those committed to the denomination (at least where voting is concerned).

BUT; if I'm not mistaken you have voiced your intention to leave to your Pastor; if I remember right from a previous thread. So we shouldn't be too critical if that Pastor still had you as the lay person and didn't suggest you stay home and they select an alternate from the district (many districts have 'at large' members available should a delegate not make it at the last minute).

I guess what circuitrider is saying is that it's not like being in the Navy and still standing watch on your last day of service; it's a bit like being a sitting member of Congress and voting on U.S. policy while intending to defect to another country, recusing citizenship, the very next day.

 

[BryanW92]

Maybe AC is different where you live. In Florida, there is no decision-making. Its all made beforehand and almost every vote is unanimous. There are no caucuses at AC and not even district-level get-togethers. Its a very sterile experience.

I think my pastor is just hoping that I'll keep showing up until I find a reason to stay. After all, as long as I'm there, then it means that the door hasn't closed yet. He did ask me to preach on 7/27 but I declined and told him that I wouldn't feel right filling that pulpit right now. So, I'm not a complete monster.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Maybe AC is different where you live. In Florida, there is no decision-making. Its all made beforehand and almost every vote is unanimous. There are no caucuses at AC and not even district-level get-togethers. Its a very sterile experience.

I think my pastor is just hoping that I'll keep showing up until I find a reason to stay. After all, as long as I'm there, then it means that the door hasn't closed yet. He did ask me to preach on 7/27 but I declined and told him that I wouldn't feel right filling that pulpit right now. So, I'm not a complete monster.

That's pretty well how the MO conference goes and, if I'm honest, I like it in some ways. So I definitely 'get' that. I was just explaining why one might see a difference between doing the work you committed to do; and representing your church for the Annual Conference (even if it's just 'on principle').

I certainly don't think you did some horrifically immoral thing. I just wanted to express that I felt your examples about being a hard working individual and doing your job the best you could until the day that job ended didn't, for me, mesh with representing your church at Annual Conference. So really, you'll just have to humor me. I was more nit-picking your choice of analogy. And if I'm brutally honest; I do hope that people (beyond just you, it's an epidemic across the denomination) take more seriously things like Annual Conference; and DON'T equate them with just obligations or 'work' we're called on to do; but understand then as incredible responsibilities to represent our local churches before the denomination.

 

[BryanW92]

it's a bit like being a sitting member of Congress and voting on U.S. policy while intending to defect to another country, recusing citizenship, the very next day.

LOL. Isn't that what they do every day? They vote for what their cronies and lobbyists and loud special interests want. We'd be a better country if they'd all cast their final votes and defect. Unlike too many of those"good Methodists" at AC, I was not there with my single-interest ribbon stuck to my nametag to show the world that I only care about one thing.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

LOL. Isn't that what they do every day? They vote for what their cronies and lobbyists and loud special interests want. We'd be a better country if they'd all cast their final votes and defect. Unlike too many of those"good Methodists" at AC, I was not there with my single-interest ribbon stuck to my nametag to show the world that I only care about one thing.

Well I can't disagree that we could definitely do without most of the congresspeople we have today. Frankly; there are far too many lawyers in Congress. If Congress is supposed to represent us (since the U.S. is a representative republic) then why is it mostly people who practice law? We need less lawyers in congress whose job is it to make, bend, twist and argue law. But I digress.

Also; I know you're talking about the Reconciliation Ministries pin but again I encourage you not to make unfair generalizations. At annual conference this past year I wore an "Ask my about Chrysalis" pin, and my Chrysalis cross (Chrysalis is Emmaus but for youth and young adults). That wasn't my "only issue", no I'm capable of a lot more than that. But I was also sent by the board I serve on for Chrysalis to let more of the people in our connection know about that incredible opportunity that the young people in their church are missing out on.

I was also an Usher, which meant I wore an Ushers vest. Yet I was capable of doing more things that just usher.

So I can assume that those who wore the RM pins on their nametags (It was stickers here) wanted to display their support and probably care about a whole lot of issues. But because that particular issue is at the forefront of the conversation they wanted it known how many people support inclusion. That's the purpose of those pins anyway; to demonstrate how many people in our connection support a change. That probably encourages people on the left and probably bothers people like you; but it is what it is. I don't think it's even remotely fair to assume that those people only care about that one issue; or that that one issue is even the most important issue TO them! But, at least at my annual conference, they weren't really handing out that many stickers or pins. And nowhere did it say "Pick a sticker that represents what's most important to you". No, actually, it was just a table with people handing out stickers to anyone who supported the reconciling ministries cause. A big chunk of those people were lay people (And I suppose Clergy too) who probably A) Had no idea who RM was, B) have never done a thing to promote their cause, BUT, C) Felt the denominations language is wrong and so, when given the chance, gladly wore a free sticker to demonstrate that.

Fact is, people are good at letting you know they feel some way about some issue. It doesn't mean they are actually doing anything about it and it definitely doesn't mean it's the only issue they are concerned about. That's actually one of the reasons I'm pretty much anti-protest. Protesting (in most contexts, perhaps not all; but most) doesn't accomplish anything. It's real accomplishment, whether admitted or not, is making a person feel like they risked something or did something to advance their cause by risking a book-and-release arrest and holding up a sign for everyone to see.

I'm sure some people picketed slavery; all the while men and women risked their lives to sneak slaves into the north! I also bet those people risking their lives to sneak the slaves into the north didn't do a tremendous amount of protesting.

 

[BryanW92]

And if I'm brutally honest; I do hope that people (beyond just you, it's an epidemic across the denomination) take more seriously things like Annual Conference; and DON'T equate them with just obligations or 'work' we're called on to do; but understand then as incredible responsibilities to represent our local churches before the denomination.

Even though I know how AC works, I still attend with open eyes and an open heart. I attend all the sessions and pay attention. I look for reasons to be glad I went, and I find some. Many people were sitting there playing on their iPhone or iPad while people were speaking on stage.

Perhaps my analogies aren't good for clergy, but we laypeople have to take our jobs as seriously as you take yours, AND we have to serve a church as unpaid volunteers with as much vigor as you serve in a paid capacity. Even when I walk out of my church for the last time, and if I walk out of the UMC, I am STILL a Christian. I'm not going to sabotage a church as I leave anymore than I would sabotage the equipment at a job that I was leaving. As an automation programmer, my sabotage could be so subtle that you wouldn't notice it until you looked at a week's worth of trending.

So to imply that the analogy that I am a dutiful and honest employee does not apply in the case of a church (which I assume is because I am mere laity) is a little insulting. If I didn't feel a sense of duty to that church and to the UMC, I would have just walked out minutes before the January Church Council meeting.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Even though I know how AC works, I still attend with open eyes and an open heart. I attend all the sessions and pay attention. I look for reasons to be glad I went, and I find some. Many people were sitting there playing on their iPhone or iPad while people were speaking on stage.

Perhaps my analogies aren't good for clergy, but we laypeople have to take our jobs as seriously as you take yours, AND we have to serve a church as unpaid volunteers with as much vigor as you serve in a paid capacity. Even when I walk out of my church for the last time, and if I walk out of the UMC, I am STILL a Christian. I'm not going to sabotage a church as I leave anymore than I would sabotage the equipment at a job that I was leaving. As an automation programmer, my sabotage could be so subtle that you wouldn't notice it until you looked at a week's worth of trending.

So to imply that the analogy that I am a dutiful and honest employee does not apply in the case of a church (which I assume is because I am mere laity) is a little insulting. If I didn't feel a sense of duty to that church and to the UMC, I would have just walked out minutes before the January Church Council meeting.

A fair criticism but I guess I see the duty and "job" of annual conference as something separate, Clergy or Laity. Again it's less about the work that's done (And I'm glad you paid attention with Vigor; we need more people who do), and more about what it means to represent your church.

I guess the best way to put it is this. Your church had a fixed amount of people they were allowed to send to Annual Conference whose responsibility it was to represent them before the denomination. At my churches it's one each, might be yours too but if it's larger it might be more than one.

So there were people who are remaining faithful members of your congregation who could've represented the congregation; instead you went and were the representative of the congregation despite having one foot out the door.

In no way am I saying you couldn't do your job, represent the congregation well or even be a tremendously positive influence on the Annual Conference. And in no way am I say you weren't the best person from your church that could've been sent. All I'm saying is, strictly on principle, you must understand why some would have reservations about you being sent to represent your church. I care a lot about my home church. Just like I care a lot about the churches I serve. My home church is declining rapidly and has some not-so-hot pastoral leadership right now. That bothers me. It would bother me even more if I found out someone was mad at the Pastor, (not saying that's you, I'm just saying that's why someone from THAT church would be leaving), was planning on leaving, but was still sent to represent my home church at Annual Conference. I wouldn't stand up and declare war against that person or demand they be thrown out or even lose any sleep over it. I just wouldn't be super happy about it. I'd have wished someone else, someone who was also unhappy with the current leadership but was intending to 'stick it out' because of the love they have for that church, would've gone in their place.

See what I'm saying?

 

[circuitrider]

Maybe AC is different where you live. In Florida, there is no decision-making. Its all made beforehand and almost every vote is unanimous. There are no caucuses at AC and not even district-level get-togethers. Its a very sterile experience.

I think my pastor is just hoping that I'll keep showing up until I find a reason to stay. After all, as long as I'm there, then it means that the door hasn't closed yet. He did ask me to preach on 7/27 but I declined and told him that I wouldn't feel right filling that pulpit right now. So, I'm not a complete monster.

No one said you were a monster Bryan. We have just expressed concern that someone who doesn't want to be a United Methodist is voting on the work of a United Methodist Conference.

As to voting, We vote with electronic voting pads and I've never ever seen a unanimous vote in Iowa.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I'd have to say my annual conference experiences are a little more like Bryans. We're not a very political conference. You would have no idea that there was division in the UMC or talk of a schism if your only experience was the Missouri Annual Conference; at least the 4 sessions I've been to! There have been rough votes now and then over controversial issues; but never issues like homosexuality or other social issues which we seem to regard as General Conference issues.

Voting for delegates takes a while but never ends up in tireless debates or hard feelings. Just takes quite a few votes. The controversial votes in the past have been over things like what to do with a big donation or, a couple years ago, voting to allow a larger church to move right next door to a small, declining UM congregation.

We still vote with the raise of a hand. Last AC everything was fairly unanimous; maybe 5 or 10 dissenting votes at the most. This year we voted to reduced the number of districts, and had 6 or 8 people vote no; the vast majority vote yes. I spoke with a couple who voted no and they expressed that they thought the DS's would gerrymander the districts or something. Seemed a bit of a stretch to me.

 

[circuitrider]

As I've said, we vote by electronic voting pad. We see the tallied votes on the screen. The only time we don't do that are simple proceedural votes and those are hand votes. But voting on resolutions, budgets, etc. is by voting pad.

We only vote on resolutions every other year so that is when some issues may be controversial. But Iowans have their say, take their votes, and it is all very democratic.

I never feel like groups or individuals didn't get to have their say.

 

[GraceSeeker]

The progressive perspective doesn't see it as sin, Bryan. That's the point many conservatives fail (or refuse) to see. So many times I hear that they are willfully sinning in a manner as you describe. You might think they are sinning, but they don't.

Does the fact that a group of people do not see their actions as sinful mean that they are not sinful?


Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." (John 9:41)

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Does the fact that a group of people do not see their actions as sinful mean that they are not sinful?


Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." (John 9:41)

No that's not what I was saying. My point was I don't think the generalization that I often hear that progressives are willfully sinning by their own admission and don't care is valid. In other words; what many people are saying is that Progressives think "Well I know it's a sin, but I don't like that it's a sin so I'm not going to call it a sin". But that's not the way they feel; so I don't think it's fair to them to claim they feel a certain way when they don't.

Like I said; not that you have to agree, but it's not fair to assume they are just ignoring the Bible on purpose when in reality they believe they are the ones interpreting it correctly.

 

[BryanW92]

No that's not what I was saying. My point was I don't think the generalization that I often hear that progressives are willfully sinning by their own admission and don't care is valid. In other words; what many people are saying is that Progressives think "Well I know it's a sin, but I don't like that it's a sin so I'm not going to call it a sin". But that's not the way they feel; so I don't think it's fair to them to claim they feel a certain way when they don't.

Like I said; not that you have to agree, but it's not fair to assume they are just ignoring the Bible on purpose when in reality they believe they are the ones interpreting it correctly.

So where does the church go with that? It is not an insignificant thing like the color of the carpet (which I understand will often lead to fistfights when its time for new carpet). One group says that acting on homosexual impulses (or any lustful impulses, for that matter) is a sin. One group says that it is a natural expression of love, but that only acting on homosexual impulses are not a sin. And a shrinking majority is blissfully unaware that this is even an issue.

I do agree with you on this. Neither side is going to give in on this issue when both consider themselves to be 100% correct. In the past, the Progressives have won on compromise because the Conservatives are willing to compromise. It goes like this:

Initial condition:

L---------------------------R

L: "Let's compromise. I'll meet you halfway."
R: "OK. That's fair."

L-------------^-------------R

R walks in.

L-------------^--------R----

L: "OK. Now, the middle has moved. Let's compromise again."

L----------^-----------R----

R: "Hey...wait. What about..."
L: "Uh uh. Do you want to compromise or not? Why won't you compromise?"
R: "Well um...OK...just this once."
L: "Good. Come on in buddy!"

L----------^------R---------

L: "OK. Now, the middle has moved. Let's compromise again."

L-------^---------R---------

And repeat again and again....

We've finally figured out how to play the game. We're reading Alinsky too.

 

[Tigermoose]

The progressive perspective doesn't see it as sin, Bryan. That's the point many conservatives fail (or refuse) to see. So many times I hear that they are willfully sinning in a manner as you describe. You might think they are sinning, but they don't. This is not a case of "Gee, I know it's a sin but I really like it so let's change the rules". This is a case of "The church is condemning me for something it has no authority to condemn me for and that's an issue of justice".

Not saying you should agree; but I do believe anyone who holds to the traditional view of homosexuality and marriage should allow enough grace to understand that those who differ do not view it as sin, and do not believe the Bible condemns it. I have yet to meet a Christian progressive who said "I think it's a sin but the church should allow it anyway", but many of my more conservative friends have used that same rhetoric, and it's just not fair.

Again, not asking you to agree with them. Just asking you to have enough grace in your heart to understand where they are coming from. It's not fair to claim that they are trying to "justify their favorite sin".

I am a former member of UMC.

They might not view homosexuality as a sin, but the Bible definitely includes it as a sin with whole lists of other practices that everyone agrees are sin. To deny this or dance around it is absurd to any person not already committed to denying this as sin. It is the plain reading of the text in context with the other listings of sin mentioned in the passages. And I am just referring to the New Testament.

If folks don't agree with what the Bible says, they can take it up with God. Please just don't be so absurd as to argue that it doesn't say what it plainly says. You KNOW the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, but you are looking for clever excuses to get around that plain reading. This abuse of Scripture is why the UMC is declining and the Holy Spirit is not to be found in inspiring and growing the Church.

Your denial (those who deny that homosexuality is a sin) of the plain reading and allowing the Holy Spirit to convict you of Sin is quenching the Spirit in your denomination.

If you cannot be honest with me, at least be honest with God. He is not deceived.

I say this so that you might remove this obstacle to the Spirit so that you and your church might thrive.

 

[AngelAmidala]

As I've said, we vote by electronic voting pad. We see the tallied votes on the screen. The only time we don't do that are simple proceedural votes and those are hand votes. But voting on resolutions, budgets, etc. is by voting pad.

We only vote on resolutions every other year so that is when some issues may be controversial. But Iowans have their say, take their votes, and it is all very democratic.

I never feel like groups or individuals didn't get to have their say.

A few days late but I wanted to chime in...

Wow I must be living in the wrong conference! haha! I'm in NYAC and with the exception of our conference last month, there has always been a series of debates when it comes to discussing petitions that did not pass with the right number of votes in the legislative sections. I almost didn't know what to do this year when we didn't have to spend 3 hours discussing a single petition!

We typically vote with hands, except when it comes to choosing delegates. We've used electronic devices the past two times we've done that (this year and three years ago). One time three years ago the "by hand" vote was too close to call so since we had the electronic devices we opted to vote that way.

Even though we had a mostly agreeable conference this year ours was still long and tiring. Many of the reports went over their allotted time which led to other things running late...it's probably a good thing we didn't have the debate which I had grown accustomed to!

 

[GraceSeeker]

I am a former member of UMC.

They might not view homosexuality as a sin, but the Bible definitely includes it as a sin

I have to stop you right there. For it is here where you find the majority of people who are for same sex marriage and the inclusive ordination of LGBTQ individuals disagreeing with your opening premise. They would say it is not clear that the Bible includes it as sin. They would then put the burden on those who say it is to show where it so "clearly" is recorded, and then they would produce a myriad points by which what you see as clairty are obfiscated. In the end, they might even argue that once dismissing all your now unclear points, what is left that is clear is a Biblical command to love one another. Give that this command *IS* clear while others are not, our first response is to practice love not hate toward one another.

Now, Tigermoose, you may not agree with that way of processing things, you have expressed that you see it as absurb and I'm not here to convince you otherwise. But, we do have to recognize that those who are wearing Rainbow stoles, ribbons, and lapel pins do NOT agree with your opening premise. If they did, I doubt that they would be arguing for what they do.

 

[GraceSeeker]

As for voting, in the Illinois Great Rivers Conference, we have been using electronic voting pads since 2007 when we started using them for casting ballots for General Conference delegates. We now use them nearly all the time. In 15 seconds we get a report of how many voted Yea, how many voted Nay, and the percentages on each. I've never yet seen a vote cast that didn't have at least a few contrary votes to the majority. Sometimes I think these are done simply as a protest or because the individuals have contrarian type personalities.

I actually think that there are much closer votes now than in the past. In the past you could see blocks of people voting the same throughout the hall. Now, of course like-minded people tend to sit together. But, I also think that there was some peer pressure going on that caused people who were fence sitters to vote in accord with those closest to them. Now, those same people may feel more comfortable voting differently -- and do.