Is This An Attempt to Bypass the General Conference

Dunnam et al's efforts are not an effort to bypass General Conference. The GC vote was affirmative to present this issue to the Annual Conferences for their vote. Education on an issue is always a good thing, and appeals to a broader audience than ordinarily pays attention to issues at ACs are great. How often does anyone speak to their pastor or lay delegate about upcoming issues at an AC? If what Dunnam did was wrong, aren't the comments posted here, on the internet for all to see, about this issue both pro and con just as "wrong"?

Two final thoughts: I have seen a youtube video by an "old white guy" in support of Amentment I, and why so many anonymous guest posts? Give your name, folks!

I think the use of YouTube and blogs and such to discuss these amendments is a wonderful step forward for the church because it involves far more people (potentially) in the discussion. Now that has the potential to make any mess all the bigger, but still, we now have the opportunity to listen to dozens or more opinions from various ministers and church members on each amendment rather than going into Annual Conference with little or no info on the Amendments (besides perhaps an official draft of the wording and a mail-out or two from our prefered caucus groups). What concerns me most is that some of the content of the Scott Jones and Maxie Dunnam videos are directly contradictory in terms of what they say the amendments will and will not do. Now it could be that neither of them REALLY knows and are guessing in accord with their own concerns/agendas (this, I suspect is the case) - or it could be that they (one or both) are misrepresenting the legislation before us, which would be a real disgrace. You are certainly welcome to check out my own 2 cents on the amendments here: http://gloria-deo.blogspot.com/2009/05/united-methodist-constitutional.h...

Telling these guys to bow to Conference and use official channels is like telling Wesley to get out of the fields. Jay Miklovic http://jay-miklovic.blogspot.com

This is just an exercise in the political discourse that we've gotten accustomed to in the United Methodist Church. Who can know everything about all 32 amendments? Who can claim to understand all the implications of a vote on 32 items? Don't you see? It's always the same. Attempts to explain away the "real" agenda behind these amendments, except for 19, cannot hide their possible outcome of making us more divided that we already are. Does it matter? I think it does. So, I'm voting no on everything except 19. Dave Nichols Spartanburg, SC

it directed a task force to study it's implications? Why in the world would thoughtful people affirm a constitutional admendment that even the General Conference doesn't understand? Seem odd to me... blessings, Sam in Wichita KS

My problem is not with Maxie and Eddie using this medium of communication, it's how they twist and distort the issues. They make a number of false claims about what these amendments to the Constitution would do, and use a lot of fear based rhetoric to pump up their base. The best response is for us to engage the debate with these mediums since they have taken it here. I engaged some of Maxie's arguments on my podcast, which you can find at http://matthewlkelley.blogspot.com. Let's put the truth out there!

Good point. I liked your article and linked it to my website www.churchandworld.com, please check it out. We are an independant UM news sight chronicling the life of the church in America and worldwide. Always something to like, always something to dislike, always something to ponder, and always everything new everyday.

Well it's good to know that a poorly formulated blog post would engender conversation, and frankly the post that is the source of this conversation was written in haste, on my way to a family wake for my Uncle. Please know that I DO commend Maxie and Eddie for embracing new forms of communication. As I said in the post, it is legal and appropriate for them to take their concerns directly to the people, and I applaud them for doing so. My fear and frustration is with our structures that do not provide for or encourage this debate in a way that more closely rivals the General Conference debate. Our processes, whether you like them or not, attempt to provide a balanced and civil debate. Rules which limit the length of speeches are not simply controls to ensure that the debate doesn't go too long; rather they attempt to encourage conversation that is deliberate and well formed. My fear (and I don't believe that Maxie goes to this level yet...) is that debate via youtube simply becomes an uncontrolled and vicious screaming match between opposing views which only polarizes folks into camps, and has no connection to the process of group discernment that we claim to hold. If I were the Pope of our communion (and thank God that I am not!!!) I would prefer to see a intentionally developed mechanism that takes the same principles of reasoned debate that we use at our General Conference and applies them to helping members of Annual Conferences in their debate on these issues, rules such as the number of speeches for and against, the length of the speeches, etc. The danger in failing to do so is that a well funded but minority opposition may be allowed a greater weight in the debate than is reflective of the original debate. Yes, this may seem odd for a blogger to suggest limiting speech, but we by mutual agreement limit speech in our gatherings in order to assure a fair and orderly process. Certainly, any of us has a right to personally voice our opinion, and if Maxie wants to blog about it or create a personal video sharing his opinion, then fine. However I fear that we are headed down a slippery slope when opposition organizations adopt this as standard practice, for I think we aren't far from a total breakdown of any possibility of constructive conversation. Peace, jv

Can't keep a fish from swimming friends, nor a person from expressing their views in all medium available. Let the words ring out and engage the listeners, challenge the deciders, and inspire the seekers. Mastering the message is always a matter of discussion, but let the messengers be free to move and shake as needed. Isn't the church best served by the power of personal witness? Let me show you my heart and my mind and you will know my soul. Nothing official about that. And it strikes me funny that a blogger would be worried about 'official' channels. Direct appeal forces us to think for ourselves about our beliefs and experiences, weigh them with what we hear or read from others, and take our steps with informed confidence. I wonder how Mr Gutenberg is taking the news? Tear down the filters!!!

I'm for almost anything which will prevent these amendments from passing and if those who favor them want to express their views there's nothing to stop them.

To summarize some of the posts below: (1) There is no conspiracy (2) The existing wording is adequately open and inviting.. except to women? Or rather women aren't "protected"... In just what way are women being discriminated against in the UMC? We have women pastors, bishops, etc... I guess I just don't **really** think this is about women in the church.

should those who actually “won” the debate and vote have the possibility for an equal response. The larger concern for me is does this direct appeal to members of annual conferences change the nature of our system in negative ways?

Is there anything stopping the supporters of this proposed amendment change from putting an old white guy up on youtube to explain the "pro" position and get a whopping 1,568 views as this video has? That sure is some one sided, unequal response.

Is this appropriate or should there be an “official” forum for these conversations.

I suppose it's only appropriate if you think people should be able to actually talk about issues and items up for vote.  But if you think that discussions should only occur in certain situations with certain restrictions/rules in place between certain individuals....then no, it's certainly not appropriate.

Also, *facepalm.

Openess and information cannot go amiss in an issue like this, but trying to "confine it to official channels" just makes us look like the Evil Empire. Like the Presidential candidates we need to use this technology, not gripe about it.

What I am not okay with are the lies.... TAKEN FROM A NOTE POSTED BY TIFFANY STEINWERT "Contrary to the misinformation provided by this video: 1. The UMC has always practiced open membership. From the time of Wesley's class meetings, when folks were taken in membership simply with "a desire to flee from the wrath to come" to today's current policy in which persons are only asked to affirm the vows of membership for themselves, the church ha sbeen open to all people. This proposed amendment does not change this open policy. As it stands, the Constitution and the Book of Discipline only require that individuals affirm the vows of membership in order to join the church. This amendment would not change that. 2. There has never existed any prohibition against membership for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons in the UMC. In fact, the current Constitutional Article on inclusiveness already protects the rights of people of all sexual orientations to be members in the church under the category of "status". (See Judicial Council Decision 702) 3. This proposed amendment is not about one particular group of people. It is about the WHOLE church! This proposed amendment was brought forth and supported by a number of different United Methodist groups including The Commission on the Status and Role of Women (COSROW). Click here to read COSROW's endorsement. COSROW sought to change this article to the Constitution because as it stands women are currently left out of the protected categories. Women are not the only group still unprotected by our Constitution...people with disabilities and mental illness are also among the groups left vulnerable in the current Constitution. 4. This proposed amendment in no way prohibits membership classes in local congregations. The amendment simply replaces the list of categories of protected people with the word "ALL." It in no way changes the requirements or practices regarding membership at the local church. 5. This proposed amendment does not impact the standards for ordination. The Book of Discipline already outlines a series of pre-requisites for ordination that go above and beyond the requirements for membership in a local church...including seminary education, years of service and intensive interviews to name just a few. Membership and ordination remain two separate issues. 6. This proposed amendment in no way impacts ability of local congregations to implement programs like Safe Sanctuaries that require certain background checks and trainings for those who serve the church. The amendment deals with issues of membership alone...not with the requirements for service within the local congregation."

I guess we can't handle all this new fangle gizmos. Heck maybe the GC should just go back to raising hands because we can't trust those computerized counters. Worst of all is that antichrist.... twitter! Seriously, I thought the message was appropriate, and expressed a certain viewpoint in a considerate manner. It was nothing mean, deceitful, or hurtful. Did he really use the word "radical"... I don't recall him using that phrase... hemenway

Jay -- Thanks for bringing this issue to the surface. I honestly don't see this as a political issue. The topic you lift up runs much deeper. The people of The United Methodist Church will always have disagreements, they always have. Each side will naturally try to voice their opinion, and it's my hope that each side will listen to the other. As history has shown, some "politic" better than others -- and the most convincing side wins the debate. At the core of your initial point, you lifted up changing cultures -- the world that we now all live has dramatically changed. And the tools of communication have dramatically changed. I am not taking sides concerning the issue that Mr. Dunnam and Mr. Fox are discussing, but they should both be commended for embracing new technologies to illustrate their point. The point that needs to be discussed here isn't political, but one of process. The way that The United Methodist Church is now conferencing is antiquated. The tools of communication now allow for conferencing to occur immediately, not every year or every four years. By embracing new technologies, the denomination has the opportunity to greatly reduce the bloated spending that occurs as a result of the status quo. We shouldn’t be debating special interest, but rather how does this denomination equip itself in ways to have a relevant voice in the world that we now live.

I'm sure it won't shock you that I see this a little differently than you do! I'm not sure that this qualifies as an act of circumvention. There is a reason that the annual conferences have a voice, too. Our process requires action by both the general conference and the annual conferences. And why wouldn't we want "the masses" in the church to understand the changes being sought, as well as the motivations behind them and the implications likely to proceed from them? And why shouldn't people, having understood the issue more fully, seek to influence those who will represent them at annual conference? You and others may question whether these youtube videos do, in fact, achieve those ends, but that's a wholly different question. You've posed it as a procedural question, not a substantive one.

I understand your concern, Jay, but I don't see how we could practically restrict such conversations. I'd like to block it all and keep the conversation entirely within the conferences. There is far too much politics in this issue already. I'd like to eliminate all these special interest groups that pressure and organize politically, but I don't see any way to avoid it. And I'm not certain I accept the notion that this is bypassing the General Conference. The General Conference has its say, and now the annual conferences do. I disagree strongly with the way Maxie Dunnam casts the issue. His suggestions that a "radical" conspiracy is out to destroy the church and his warning that churches will be required to hire pedophiles are not in keeping with the spirit of Christian love - no matter how friendly he appears while saying what he is saying. But I do not see how the denomination can stop such messages. I am sure "the other side" will have its own materials out there soon.