Amendment 1 (without the baggage)
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Annual conferences of the United Methodist Church from all over the world will be voting on the 32 proposed amendments to the church's Constitution in the coming weeks.
The amendments have already generated a great deal of discussion. News articles and blog posts have appeared in print and online. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the whole thing has been the YouTube appeals from figures both prominent and obscure in the church.
I personally approach these kinds of moments at annual conference with fear and trembling. The parliamentary procedure that we use does not allow for the kind of holy conferencing needed to discuss matters of importance to the church. And yet, we do not seem capable of finding another way. That means that we will be forced to decided whether, and to what extent, we should amend the Constitution of the church based off of a flawed system and an impoverished discussion.
As I have reflected on the various amendments, I've come to have deep reservations about many of them. And my reservations are often for reasons that do not seem to show up in the discussions going on elsewhere. So over the past few weeks I've been organizing my thoughts. Below you'll find a link to a commentary on Amendment 1, the amendment that would change the "membership article" in the Book of Discipline:
"Amendment 1 (without the baggage)"
If you care about the coherence of how we understand ourselves as a church, please read this short essay. And feel free to pass it along to others.
I'll also follow this post up with another one in a few days, when I will share a commentary on the "Worldwide Church" amendments that make up 23 of the 32 total amendments.
The amendments have already generated a great deal of discussion. News articles and blog posts have appeared in print and online. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the whole thing has been the YouTube appeals from figures both prominent and obscure in the church.
I personally approach these kinds of moments at annual conference with fear and trembling. The parliamentary procedure that we use does not allow for the kind of holy conferencing needed to discuss matters of importance to the church. And yet, we do not seem capable of finding another way. That means that we will be forced to decided whether, and to what extent, we should amend the Constitution of the church based off of a flawed system and an impoverished discussion.
As I have reflected on the various amendments, I've come to have deep reservations about many of them. And my reservations are often for reasons that do not seem to show up in the discussions going on elsewhere. So over the past few weeks I've been organizing my thoughts. Below you'll find a link to a commentary on Amendment 1, the amendment that would change the "membership article" in the Book of Discipline:
"Amendment 1 (without the baggage)"
If you care about the coherence of how we understand ourselves as a church, please read this short essay. And feel free to pass it along to others.
I'll also follow this post up with another one in a few days, when I will share a commentary on the "Worldwide Church" amendments that make up 23 of the 32 total amendments.
Labels: Annual Conference, Ecclesiology, UM Constitutional Amendments
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 4:06 PM
8 Comments:
When I posted earlier today, I didn't have the Google Group set so that you could download the pdf without joining the Group.
I believe I've fixed that, so you can click on the hotlink, then click on the link in the download page to which it will direct you. That should deliver the pdf to your desktop without having to request permission to join the actual Google Group itself. Sorry for the confusion.
Andrew,
Nice to read our work again. Near the end of the essay, I think you alluded to what I feel is the heart of the matter of membership: joining a church is entering into something. It is about movement, not staying still and participating in programs a la carte. There needs to be an acceptance on the part of the person discerning membership that the choice isn't up to them (like going to a movie). And there needs to be an acknowledgement on the part of the Church that they are a body into which people enter, not out of which people take. I think you hinted at these points in various places in your essay, but they were not articulated as such.
I just wanted to throw that in as a form of agreement and support and hope that many will read your work and that Annual Conferences will not support it blindly.
The more I read and learn about the Amendments, the more I'm believing that Amendment 1 is probably the worst one of them all. The most striking feature of this amendment is that the way it's worded, a pastor must simply accept someone's vows to be obedient to Christ at face value, without having a conversation with that person about what that really means. So if someone takes vows but doesn't really mean it or doesn't understand what it means, the pastor can't do his/her job and refuse membership, which completely defeats the purpose of having a pastor to begin with.
Andrew,
Thank for your work here. I hope you don't mind, but I took you seriously on your invitation to share this. Therefore, I posted a link on my blog.
www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
peace,
Chad
You get to the heart of it, past all the BS.
A couple things have come to mind on this. Some churches require a membership course before joining, even when transferring from one UMC to another. Take Ginghamsburg UMC, for example. One of the largest UM churches requires a 13 week membership course before you can join! At the conclusion of the course, the church interviews YOU the potential member to see if you're serious about growing in discipleship! I love these ideas, but approval of this amendment might mean that such courses are anti-Discipline. I think it's amazing and commendable that one of our largest churches - both in attendance and membership - tells people, "Let's get to know each other."
Second, as a local church pastor, I often explain the difference between mere attendance and membership through a sports analogy. Attendees are welcome to attend, cheer the team on, and participate in some sense with the team's advancement. But members are on the team. They're on the field, getting their hands dirty, sacrificing themselves for something greater than themselves: the victory of the whole team. Attendees sit on the sidelines. Members are on the (mission)field. This amendment would appear to mean (and correct me if I'm wrong) that any person attending could walk in and say,"Sign me up" and walk right back off the field.
Third, again, as a local church pastor, membership is a big deal for me as I select my lay leadership. At present, the BOD puts the pastor as chair of the Nominating Committee, giving him/her great leeway in determining who leads in a local church. I want people with spiritual maturity, not even mere experience of membership. I wonder...if this passes, will we next be telling pastors that any joe blow has the RIGHT to serve on whatever committee he wants? I guess I'm trying to point out (in a convoluted way) that if we lower the bar on discerning membership, that will eventually infect our discernment of leadership.
I have AC in 2wks. I can tell you which way I'm voting: NO.
Andrew, I appreciate your attempt to address this amendment without referencing homosexuality. I think you are right on target in what you said except for this exclusion.
Homosexuality isn't the baggage, it is the essential issue driving this amendment. Those who have been trying for years to change our church's position on human sexuality have failed in their attempts. However, it is obvious that this amendment is new strategy to acheive their goal of full inclusion of homosexuals in the life of the church.
If all are eligible for membership and to participate in the life of the church, then it is only reasonable that all are eligible for the two specific ministries which homosexuals are now excluded, ordination and marriage. It doesn't take too much of an imagination to see the Judicial Council ruling that because of the statement in the constitution (as amended) that the Disciplinary statements concerning ordination and marriage of homosexuals are unconstitutional.
If the Iowa Supreme Court can overrule legislative action and make homosexual marriage a right, why should we think that the JC won't do the same thing?
I appreciate the comments on this post, as well as the numerous e-mail and facebook messages I have received since sending out my commentary on Amendment 1. I hope to have the commentary on the Worldwide Church Amendments finished today, and if so, I will post it on this blog as well as e-mail it to the same list as I did with the first commentary.
Though many annual conferences have either already met or are currently meeting, I still hope the second commentary will provide food for thought for any interested persons. The responses to the first commentary that I have received - both critical and constructive - indicate to me that, for some at least, it was a helpful way to go about thinking through the issues around Amendment 1. That was my hope, especially since contentious issues in the church can so often produce debates exhibiting more heat than light.
Andrew,
I am glad that you are raising the core membership issues that may lie behind the reasons some groups are supporting Amendment I.
As I read the Discipline, however, the effect of the Constitutional amendment would not be immediately to overthrow JC Decision 1032 and its determination that the appointed pastor has sole authority to determine readiness.
At least, not until that is tested in cases before Judicial Council.
And even then, at this point, the "may" language that remains in the membership paragraphs (except now for 225), and which was the core of the argument in 1032, would still, I think, from the point of how our "canon law" usually works, would trump the "shall" in the Constitution.
Here's why. The Constitution typically establishes WHAT will be the case for the church. The Discipline itself-- supplemented by interpretation by Judicial Council as may be needed-- spells out the HOW. That all persons may be ELIGIBLE for membership does not establish that they automatically have it, or how they have it. The Discipline itself does that.
That said, should Amendment I pass, yes, I think we can expect there to be Judicial Council challenges precisely on the grounds of the amendment.
And we can also expect more proposed amendments to remove all the "mays" in existing legislation in 2012-- whether the Amendment passes or not. If it does pass, my sense is this will make it more likely that such legislative changes would be developed, and perhaps marginally more likely that they will pass.
And the unfortunate thing is that will have happened without having had the conversation-- or maybe actually fight-- we actually need to have about the nature of membership itself.
Your article helps us begin that conversation.
Thanks.
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Post a Comment
<< Home