wp-plugin-bluehost domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/salvagh0/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114This past weekend, I was part of the meeting of the Committee on Reference for the General Conference.<\/p>\n
Typically, our work focuses on assigning (or referring) petitions and legislation to various committees of the General Conference. But we were tasked with a new role in light of this special called General Conference.<\/p>\n
As Paragraph 14 of our Constitution states:\u00a0 “the purpose of such a special session shall be stated in the call, and only such business shall be transacted as is in harmony with the purpose stated in such call unless the General Conference by a two-thirds vote shall determine that other business may be transacted.”<\/p>\n
When our Bishops issued the initial call, it was “limited to receiving and acting upon a report from the Council of Bishops based on the recommendations of the Commission on a Way Forward.”\u00a0 And so, they asked our Judicial Council (basically our Supreme Court) – does that mean that we will ONLY discuss the report… or can others submit legislation, too?<\/p>\n
The Judicial Council ruled that “petitions which are in harmony with any business which may be proposed in the Bishops’ Report are allowed.”\u00a0 And it would be up to the committees of General Conference to determine this. That committee – Committee on Reference.<\/p>\n
Since then, to help with utter clarity, the call was amended so that the report is not the Bishops’ report… but the COWF report.\u00a0 So… our Committee on Reference was tasked with evaluating which, if any, of the 98 valid petitions submitted by any group or individual were “in harmony” with the business proposed in the COWF Report.<\/p>\n
You can read the official report of our actions here<\/a> and here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Here are some of my general take-aways from our gathering. Our committee represents every central conference and every jurisdiction. We worked thoughtfully, carefully, and with a great spirit of openness. Every person set aside their own preferences to create criteria we thought were in line with the call for the conference. Knowing it was an entirely subjective process, I think the clarity of our criteria and the consensus around those criteria was powerful. There were other petitions that would also have changed dynamics around the General Conference’s ability to make changes or create charges, or how we legislate. Those were also out of harmony for our more limited call. Same with a petition that would have impacted the judicial council.<\/p>\n What remains are petitions that are seen to directly relate to the inclusion or exclusion of LGBT persons (which is language that came out of the COWF as they narrowed their focus from human sexuality more broadly)\u2026 AND\/OR petitions that we believe were designed to modify, correct, perfect the three COWF plans. What remains are plans that could essentially be seen as amendments or additions to the three plans.<\/p>\n We were not willing to entertain the possibility that dissolution was even remotely “in harmony” with the call of our special conference.<\/p>\n I think that is really helpful as we narrow our focus. As a delegate, I feel like we don’t have thirty plans to choose from… we have three… with a whole bunch of possible amendments to them. Even the Simple Plan or Fully Inclusive Plan could be seen as essentially amendments to the One Church Plan in that they remove the same things, but in a different way. The other more exclusive amendments to those paragraphs could be seen as amendments of the Traditionalist Plan. The “gracious exit” or “trust clause” petitions were seen as possible amendments to ANY plan – even though all of the plans didn’t include them, because one did, it was seen as something that could be valid for any\/all.<\/p>\n THAT SAID… what our committee was NOT supposed to do was to think about the constitutionality of any petition. Some of what has been allowed through is clearly unconstitutional based upon what the Judicial Council has already ruled. It will be up to the General Conference to determine either to vote it down or to change it so that it is constitutional.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This past weekend, I was part of the meeting of the Committee on Reference for the General Conference. Typically, our work focuses on assigning (or referring) petitions and legislation to various committees of the General Conference. But we were tasked with a new role in light of this special called General Conference. As Paragraph 14…<\/span><\/p>\n
\nIt was clear early on that anything having to do with bishops was seen as out of harmony… I think owing to the reality that globally we have very different understandings of the episcopacy. While the accountability piece is important for traditionalists, there was also a strong sense that those petitions were about changing the episcopacy and therefore not related to what we are there to do.<\/p>\n