The biggest item on the agenda for Monday, April 28, was the election of the Judicial Council.  The Judicial Council is like the Supreme Court in the US governmental system.  It deals with the interpretation of the Discipline (as the Supreme Court deals with matters related to the Constitution).  In the past the Judicial Council has been the friend (generally) of evangelicals, protecting the church against the abuse of the episcopacy, and actions of conferences (or churches or agencies) that violate the Discipline.                   

However, much like the Supreme Court, members of the Judicial Council have biases.  Liberals are much more apt to overturn laws that don’t match their liberal biases (reconstructionists).  Conservatives tend to hold to original intent and tradition (constructionists).  Liberals have not been happy with the present Judicial Council which, among other things, reinstated a Virginia pastor who basically had been fired by a bishop’s questionable action.  The pastor’s “offense” was denying membership to a practicing homosexual who stated that he had no desire to change his lifestyle.

The result of the elections?  Most of the open positions on the Council were won by liberals.  It was obvious that some very good people who had served faithfully on the Council were targeted by the liberals and they were not re-elected.

What does this mean for the church?  It is still too early to tell.  The persons who were elected were all nominated by bishops.  Such persons, though liberal and institutional, might be fair-minded and might place the good of the church above the temptation to re-fashion the church according to their liberal biases.  We surely trust so.  We will soon find out. 

Some legislation has now made it through the legislative groups and is ready for action at the plenary.  Among the items:

..A resolution which calls for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  

..A resolution which calls for peacemaking but which (significantly) retains a recognition that sometimes military response is justified (just war).

..A resolution against human cloning.

..A resolution against stem cell research.

..A resolution which, while supportive of the National Council of Churches, asks for financial accountability.

..The petition to call for constitutional changes in the Discipline to work for regional conferences (called the segregation bill because it would separate the American church from the growing influence of the overseas churches).  This would bring some very major changes to the structure of United Methodism.

..A re-writing of para. 161G in the Social Principles which would remove the phrase “We do not condone the practice of homosexuality…”  This petition, which obviously would change the UM stance on homosexuality, passed narrowly in the legislative group.  A minority report is being prepared and the issue will be debated (as it is every General Conference) on the conference floor.

..A petition authorizing a new United Methodist hymnal.

Among the petitions which DID NOT receive legislative group support:

..Petitions which would clarify the pastor’s role in determining church membership.

..Petitions which would change statements on prohibiting funds for promotion of homosexuality; those which would change statements about homosexuals performing same sex unions; those which would change statements on the ordination and appointment of practicing homosexuals as pastors.

There are a few of the legislative groups still working on petitions.  From now on, however, most of the reporting will be on legislation that was or was not approved by the General Conference.

    A report, “Operational Assessment of the Connectional Church,” conducted by an...

   More Christians were martyred in the 20th Century than in the previous nineteen...

    I was speaking with a fellow pastor several years ago and inquired whether he...