Our Historical Context

Historically speaking, the Methodist tradition has been plagued by trying to contain the theological problem of how to hold Calvinists (followers of John Calvin) like George Whitefield and Arminians (followers of Jacob Arminius) like John Wesley.  Charles Wesley tried to gloss over the differences by using language and frames of reference from both in his hymns.  But it did not resolve John’s and George’s disagreements over theology.  So Whitefield began his exile (my term) of preaching in America and occasionally in the British Isles.  Though George died in the colonies, he arranged for John to preach his funeral sermon in England.

The same differences in theology plague us today.  I have put together a more expansive statement on this in my personal blog at http://jerryeckert.blogspot.com. 

The evangelical fervor which led to the missionary movements in the 18^th and 19^th centuries and disrupted the settled denominations in Europe and North America (the main complaint was that the religious life and practice of the settled churches was not really Christian as far as the Calvinists were concerned).  The Calvinists focused on conversion (being saved from sin) while most other churches emphasized sanctification (becoming more and more like Christ).  The Calvinists tend toward believing in inerrancy of the Bible and the rest include other sources of revelation such as reason, experience, and tradition.  

In America, United Methodism has tried to hold Arminianism and Calvinism together.  There are deep pockets of both, hence there are large swaths of Arminian-type United Methodists, largely in the north and west and Calvinist-type United Methodists largely in the south.  In world wide United Methodism, Arminianism prevails in Western Europe and Calvinism tends to influence the mission areas (former colonial areas to Europe) in most of Africa and Asia.

Since 1972, the Calvinists in America serving as United Methodists have taken as their flag the fight against homosexuality.  Why that instead of abortion (which was carefully resolved in the 1960s in our Social Principals) or divorce (also resolved back then) or racism (on paper we’re good), is because it was controversial for the first time in the 1960s when a popular Baltimore pastor came out of the closet, throwing the denomination as a whole into an uproar, and then having a civil court stop the denomination from kicking him out.  

Homosexuality was a non-issue up to that point.  There was little real data, experience, or tradition in the church at the time so the Calvinists took the new use of the term “homosexual” as the Revised Standard Version translation of the words in their original language used instead of the term “pedophile” and raised that flag to assert their response to the controversy.  

While every nation, every culture, has among its people those who are homosexual, not all societies have had a niche for them.  The Calvinists were thrilled when an African bishop addressed General Conference in the 1990s saying the Church must deal with the problem of homosexuality.

I take this much space to remind you, dear reader, that the Arminians among us feel their tradition has been violated by the Calvinists and the Calvinists think they are the bearers of traditional Christianity and each side has lots of support and a long history in the church as it stands today, though neither’s true history extends back before 1500 A. D.  In fact, in our denominational history, until 60 years ago, neither tradition really bothered with concerns about homosexuality.  It is a mostly modern issue in the lifetime of around half of UMC members worldwide.

But it is our problem and this commentary needs to address the current manifestation of this wedge issue in the remaining decisions of the Council from February and April of 2019.

And global warming is dangerously upon us while we squabble . . . .

JCD 1375

www.umc.org/decisions/79285

The Bishops Strike Early

The Council’s Fall 2018 session pretty much shot down most of the Calvinists’ (most would say “traditionalists” but I like my terms of Arminian and Calvinist better since both have long traditions in the UMC)  petitions in JCD 1366.  There are very gifted church law people in the Calvinists’ group and they went to work to try to work around what the Council pointed out were unconstitutional in their plan.  The Council of Bishops (hereinafter the Bishops) met just before GC2019 and requested declaratory decisions related to some of the Calvinists’ revised petitions.  This request dealt with two elements of that plan, streamlining the process for dealing with allegations related to homosexuals and setting up an international tribunal for homosexuality allegations against bishops under the Council of Bishops.

The  Calvinists saw a pattern in how allegations were handled over the last couple quadrennia.  Those conferences and jurisdictions where the Arminians predominated, the allegations tended to be dropped somewhere between the supervisory response to a written complaint from a Calvinist and a trial.  

So one petition to the GC2019 cut out practically everything from the complaint to the trial at the conference level and tried to establish a special committee on investigation on the General Conference level..  The Council jumped on that one, saying it removed the right of the annual conference to process the complaint, a violation of the constitution (Par. 33).

The other petition wanted to set up an international judicial committee of bishops under the Bishops in an attempt to get away from how Arminian jurisdictions could slow walk or drop homosexuality-related complaints.

The Council clobbered that petition because the constitution (Par. 50) gives accountability to the jurisdictions where the bishops are elected.

That ruling was shared with GC2019.  The related petitions were dropped.

Was the Council supporting the Arminians?  I do not think so.  The constitution is clear on both counts.  This was a by-the-book decision.

Preface to Commentaries on Recent JCDs

Overview of Recent Decisions

I have dreaded doing the commentaries on the Council’s decisions on the legislation put forward related to avoiding the feared split of United Methodism.   Had I been a member of the Council, I doubt I would have supported the majority at many points, something you may see when I finally settle myself down and analyze the decisions of these past two sessions.

Rather than bring my full opinion to the conflict within the denomination as expressed through the work faced by the Judicial Council, let me point you, dear reader, to my own blog where I am freer to say what I think needs to be said.

But let me quote one colleague regarding the conflict just so you have some idea of where my perspective lies and decide to explore it.  To explore, go to https://jerryeckert.blogspot.com/.

Here is the one quote from the Rev. Dr. Chomingwen Pond, retired pastor, former missionary, and former professor of theology at Africa University:

“What we need now is the Gamaliel Solution (Acts 5:34-39). When Peter and the Apostles were arrested and the religious leadership wanted them killed, Gamaliel, a highly respected teacher of Israel, reminded them that they had faced similar situations at least twice before, and that when the leader was killed, their followers melted away. So in this case be careful. If it is of human origin, it will disappear of its own accord; if it is of God, it will endure--and you may find you are fighting God!”

Update:  My dread waned the more I read the decisions.  The Council was "by-the-book" all the way.

I am very sad to report that within weeks of her words quoted above, Dr. Pond passed away.  Her life, ministry, and spirit are more than worth honoring.

JCD 1366

http://www.umc.org/decisions/78138

Constitutionality of the Various Plans Before General Conference

Other writers have provided information on the three main plans before General Conference meant to deal with the deep divide in our denomination over the practice of homosexuality.  They include differing efforts on how to allow amicable separations of congregations, establishing new jurisdictions for each of the two sides in the debate, and more enforcement and punishment for those who disagree with current church law on the matter.

I admire the careful consideration provided to the Council of Bishops’ request.  That was very gracious of the Council, considering that the Council turned down a similar request last year because the Council did not see the request taking into account all the options that might be petitioned.  I’m sure there was a fear that calling out one or another of the plans as unconstitutional or as “clean” might prejudice the General Conference.  

With the plans in their petition form and the establishment of clear limits of any further petitions, the Council gave attention to sorting through everything coming through the Bishops from the Way Forward Commission and noting which petitions among that lot were okay and which were not under church law.

In briefest summary, the Council found the Bishops’ favorite, the One Church Plan,” to be mostly okay.  The Council found serious flaws that violate the constitution in the “Traditional Plan.”  The third plan, the Connectional Conference Plan, was not examined because it required constitutional changes and the Council cannot take jurisdiction over those kinds of petitions.

If you are interested in those details, the decision is well framed and any editing down as was thought necessary for JCD 1341 (the “Bishop Oliveto” decision) was laid aside.  Nerd out on JCD 1366 to your heart’s content.  You will also find many articles at the websites of the United Methodist News Service (https://www.umnews.org) and at United Methodist Insight (um-insight.net).  You may also find of interest a critique of the Bishops’ favorite plan which while it passed muster with the Council would leave the denomination vulnerable.  Go to http://www.wesletspace.net/GC-2029/Critique - One Church Plan.pdf.

This decision will not resolve the tension the 2019 General Conference faces.  It puts more pressure on the conservatives to come up with amendments that clean up their petitions and leaves them facing further challenges to the Council if they prevail with their votes.  I do not see many moderate to liberal churches leaving to denomination as the conservatives hope if the conservatives win.  

What I do see, though, is that by 2028, our successors will bemoan the fact that we wasted decades on the issue of homosexuality while the earth warmed.  The latest projections are that the world economy and politics have to change dramatically toward cooling the planet or the life we have known faces EXTINCTION . . . IN OUR LIFETIME.*

I have more to say on how we got here.  You can find that in posts I made on my personal blog at www.jerryeckert.blogspot.com.  

What I am advocating for in this posting here is that all of the differences of opinion, of tradition, of Biblical understanding, important as they are to who we as individuals feel them to be, pale in light of how rapidly the globe is warming and how soon the damage that is doing will become irreversible.  My prayer is that this General Conference will drop this whole controversy and face the most critical issue of our existence, find a collective prophetic voice to face it, and look for ways we can work to save the planet.

*Type “2030 global warming" into any search engine like Google for confirmation.

JCM 1359

http://www.umc.org/decisions/76717

Note: For some odd reason, there are two postings on JCM 1359 which are identical if separately posted.   

Should Dockets Include Why Reconsideration Is Being Requested?

JCM 1359 dealt with JCM 1347.  In that earlier memorandum, the questioners tried to challenge the anti-homosexual paragraphs of the Discipline as violations of the Restrictive Rules against changing the doctrine of the denomination.  The Council said it had no jurisdiction because the question was theological and could not be shown to relate to any action taken by the Denmark Annual Conference.

The Council has long had rules for reconsideration which set high but not unreasonable bars.  In the past, requests for reconsideration were all swept away in what appeared to be out-of-hand ways.  They were automatic on the Disciplinary basis that the Council had the last word (Paragraph 2609.11, 2016 Discipline). 

But then on one occasion, the Council reconsidered and sustained a decision based on an argument by a particular bishop (JCD 530 in re: JCD 524).  On some others, they reconsidered decisions when the Council of Bishops made the request (JCDs 612 and 910).  On one other, they chose to reconsider several decisions on their own (JCD 704).  

Unfortunately, the practice of the Council not to include requests for reconsideration in their dockets leaves us bereft of the chance to see what arguments are put forward to challenge the Council’s rulings on things like lack of jurisdiction.  

JCD 1330

http://www.umc.org/decisions/69708

Is the Board Required . . . .?

I prepared a full answer and then realized I was preparing a brief.  So except for a short paragraph, I am holding the main body of my comment until after the Council meets in April.  I regret having waited so long to doing these commentaries.

Now, regarding the decision, I think the bishop and Council are both in error.  The four questions are all academic.  Answers to the questions actually change nothing.  They are not related to a specific case.  They are arguments against the Board’s statement of policy which was not actually before the conference for any kind of action

Concluding Thoughts on the 2014 Spring Session

My view of the Council’s spring session focuses on three major themes, reconsideration of previous decisions, clarifying the relationship between an emergency relief agency and an annual conference, and sorting out rights of homosexuals.

First, a scanning of the last five commentaries shows that requests for reconsideration are not included in the docket for each Council session.  Let me argue for the Council posting in part the issues which are being raised in those requests.  If you check the docket (go to  HYPERLINK "http://umc.org/who-we-are/judicial-council" http://umc.org/who-we-are/judicial-council and click on VIEW DOCKETS in the middle of the page), you will see the complete request for a ruling.  In one case where I requested reconsideration, the document went on for pages so I would certainly grant editorial rights to the Secretary of the Council.  Since the Council is open to briefs from “friends of the court,” it would help those “friends” to know the grounds for reconsideration that is being asked, just in case insights from the “friends” would aid the Council.

Second, the emergency that led to the formation of “Hope for the Future, Inc.” in New Jersey is a reason and not an excuse for the hasty decisions made to get the program operational.  However, just asking the conference and the corporation simply to watch their boundaries is not sufficient sanction against what the Council acknowledged as Disciplinary violations in setting up the corporation.  While there are “friends of the court” who might be willing to examine the JCDs related to the Greater New Jersey situation and provide a careful listing of violations to avoid in future emergency situations, it would be more authoritative if some or all of the Council members could list them in a concurring opinion, as a Council member did on one issue in JCD 1256.  Further, the Council might provide a church law framework for annual conferences to anticipate handling emergency decision-making following a catastrophe which prevents convening the conference.  Beside the advantage of the legal framework and guidelines provided by the Council being authoritative, it would be independent of the bias of the Council of Bishops who may well set up their own framework and guideline lists which, under their current administrative culture, would accrue more power unto themselves.  See my commentary on JCD 1257.

When the bishops come out with their version, there will be opportunities for them to be challenged at annual conference and thus bring them to the Council’s attention.  But by the Council preemptively providing them, the bishops may decide to abide by them and save themselves and the Council future work.

The final area of concern in this batch of decisions relates to gay rights.  

In the case of the candidate who was turned down (JCD 1263), even an “avowed practicing homosexual” has the right to a proper hearing.  That self-avowal in and of itself is not immediately disqualifying.  The candidate or respondent has the right to a hearing and appeal before his/her peers prior to action being taken. 

In the case of same gender spouses’ rights to benefits, the Discipline provides for equal treatment at least with respect to practices of the surrounding community (JCD 1264).

The Council allows aspirational resolutions, something that only seems to be put forward by those concerned about humane and fair treatment of homosexuals.  The Council strikes down resolutions that call for violation of the Discipline. – One wonders what the Council will do if a resolution calling for schism is passed by a conference.

The range of issues handled by the Council this term was smaller, something common in the spring session.  But the Council is apparently settled into a consistent understanding of church law on those things and that helps all of us.

Now if only they will tweak a few rules and procedural matters . . . .

JCD 1215

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1335&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1229

INVITATION TO END DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGBTQI FOLKS

A Wisconsin Conference pastor was put on trial for two charges, for being a self-avowed practicing homosexual and for conducting a service of union for two gay partners. The trial court found her not guilty of the first charge because it would have required a third party to observe whether or not the “self-avowing” was actually true and not just a political statement. She was found guilty of the second charge, was suspended for twenty days, and instructed as part of the trial court decision to prepare a report exploring the issue of reconciliation among those who disagree over the church’s stance on homosexuality.

The report is worth reading because it shows considerable research and is well written. The entire text is found at http://www.loveontrial.org/pages/covenant.document,pdf/.

The report was presented this June at annual conference. After they accepted her report, church counsel from the trial rose to challenge that action. He presented two questions, one related to the report’s calling for ending discrimination against LGBTQI folks in violation JCD 1111 (no conference may ignore the Discipline even for conscience sake); two, relating to funding a group to work on that project, does that funding constitute promoting homosexuality contrary to P 613.20?

If the respondent in a church trial appeals a decision of the trial court, church counsel then has a chance to argue the case upon appeal. Otherwise, church counsel has no appellate rights except in a case that is handled egregiously (P 2715.10). He chose not to make that kind of challenge, though there are some who wish he had. In my way of thinking, he would have had a hard time proving his case since the pastor was found guilty and the trial court had determined penalties. The Council had been very clear lately that it does not want to overturn the decisions in a church trial (JCD 1094, particularly).

So church counsel chose to raise questions about the report as a way to get a modest kind of review by the Judicial Council.

The bishop responded that the Discipline calls for an end to discrimination so the request in the report for a committee to explore the concern is in order and until the committee assigned with the task has delivered its report in 2013, the first question of the church counsel is hypothetical and need not be answered. The bishop said the second question is also moot and hypothetical because the funding of the study committee enables it to function but does not require a particular answer to how to end possible discrimination.

The Judicial Council concurred. Until the study committee reports next year, the questions asked by the church counsel are hypothetical.

Again, those who feel strongly about homosexuality as contrary to Scripture may see this decision as evading the question. Is any examination of the issue of homosexuality legitimate in the denomination simply because treating any form of study about it is encouraging it? But that issue is long settled in a number of previous Council decisions. Innumerable studies have been supported as within church law.

Those who feel that there is discrimination in the church over homosexuality may be heartened that these kind of studies may legally continue but they know the Council has struck down any actions taken as a result of the studies because they violated the Discipline’s current strictures about homosexuality.

Maybe this Wisconsin effort will find a new path toward reconciling the differences. The United Methodist Church needs help on this divisive issue. Until the General Conference finds a better solution than it has during the past four decades, this conflict will be with us for awhile.

Note: The pastor’s report adds a new wrinkle to the size and shape of the LGBT community. She adds a “Q” and an “I” (LGBTQI). She includes a glossary at the end of her paper. The “Q” represents those who are “questioning” their own sexual orientation and the “I” represents those who are “Intersex” (having both sexual organs at birth – see http://www.isna.org/).

One of the more recent scientific findings is that homosexuality may be a matter of degrees in some people because it is based on the hormones of the birth mother. So, while many gay people are gay by genetics, many are more or less homosexual based on the level of hormones of their mother at their birth. So for many people, their potential confusion over homosexuality may be seen along a spectrum rather than either that they are or they aren’t.

That would underscore the addition of the “Q” to the pastor’s identifying initials of the community.

JCD 1218

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1337&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1229

“REQUIREMENT TO DISCRIMINATE”

The New York Conference was offered a petition calling upon its members to consider not discriminating against LGBT members and their families. It was challenged by means of a question of law requesting the bishop to rule it null and void based on extensive church law.

The Judicial Council ruled the resolution was aspirational and does not have legal enforcement behind it.

Such resolutions have survived testing before the Council in the past, as noted in the decision. That was the ruling of the bishop and that ruling was affirmed by the Council.

The term “discrimination” enters into the judicial discussions in this session from two places, New York and Wisconsin. The New York resolution and the report of the Wisconsin pastor may be the result of discussions at General Conference among those who find the church’s laws on homosexuality oppressive.

It will come up in other places next year.

Will that argument forward the discussion or will it be neutralized some way?

Who says church life is boring?


Labels:

JCD 1220

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1338&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1229

RENOUNCING GENERAL CONFERENCE’S STANCE ON THE LGBT COMMUNITY

A resolution passed by the California-Pacific Conference was challenged by a request for an episcopal ruling of law. The resolution renounced the stance of the General Conference with regard to incompatibility of homosexuality with Scripture and a number of other points of church law related to the LGBTQ community. The other stipulations had to do with affirming the sacred worth of those folks, building inclusive communities with them, and inviting churches and individuals to live out these principles.

The Bishop supported the whole resolution as aspirational. The Council supported him on all but the first stipulation and only those parts of the fourth stipulation related to the second, third, and fourth.

You can read it by going to the website for Judicial Council Decisions at http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263
And then click on “View the Current Judicial Council Docket” where you can scroll down to Docket Item 1012 – 18.

The Council pointed out that a conference can “announce” or “denounce” but it may not “renounce” without stepping over the line on relating to a church law.

To those in the world community, including the ones in the United States and Western Europe who do not agree with this resolution, you will see it again and again in coming years in some form or other. I pray for the day when people on both sides of this issue can understand why these resolutions will keep coming and how they can possibly be worded to reflect a consensus. As long as there is the stance that “We are right so you cannot possibly be,” the best we can do is to not let it turn into a stumbling block to our being in mission together.

An African on Homosexuality

(Written on 4/30 and published in UM-Insight on May 2, 2012)

My African friend is very proud of his sons.

I hated to do it but I said, “There is a good chance one or both of your younger sons is homosexual.”

“That is not possible,” he replied. “I am not rich and do not intend to send them to school in the west, no. Besides,” he said, “their uncle, when it is time, will teach each one to be men and the adults who live around us will correct him if he misbehaves.”

I reassured him I had science to show that as a woman goes through a birth, her hormones change a little. And at the time of birth of the younger sons, her hormones have changed so much they affect the hormones of the newborn. Scientists have noticed that homosexuality tends to occur after two or three births. The correlating change that appears to cause it is the mother’s hormones changing.

I also reassured him that the study was not done of Africans but of western families and there may be biological differences that do not work the same way there. And there is some evidence that it may be genetic. The science is not completed as yet.

He said his experience with homosexuality was that it appeared only in young men from wealthy families who went to Europe or America for college or work and came back with the lifestyle. They found it to be the style of life that was "the 'in' thing." When they return to Africa, they throw their money around and influence younger men that they would be in style if they practiced homosexuality. And many young men like the money and attention.

I told him of my experience in New York City that there were many young people going into show business or other arts in which the dominant personalities were homosexual and so the younger people felt they had to be so in order to get a job and work their way up in those professions. I said that I knew many people who did not choose their orientation but had been so since their childhood.

He had not had that experience. He explained why he thought there was homosexuality.

“The way it all began was with the king and queen a long time ago, perhaps Roman times maybe longer ago than that,” he said. “For their personal safety and the protection of those ruling the nation, they could not sleep together. One assassin could kill them both if they did, ending their rule. It would not be right to express their sexual needs with servants of the opposite sex. There could be babies, yes. But they could ask a servant of the same sex to join with them to relieve their needs. And that is how it all started.”

I thought that sounded more like an origin myth than a historical explanation but he found it very understandable and applicable to the homosexuality of which he was aware.

“They are all wealthy and have lived in the west,” he repeated, “and they chose that style of life. No, my sons will not be homosexual.”

He went on. “In my country, we look upon them as sick, as addicted just like alcoholics. But we do them no harm. The African way is to never draw blood. We would never kill them. I was astounded when I heard about how Americans are violent against homosexuals when I came to Fort Worth four years ago. In my country, we treat them like we treat everybody else. We eat with them, shop with them, do nothing to harm them. We wait until they are ready and then we work to heal them like we would any other addict. We even buy their CDs if they are talented. One singer went abroad and came back different, a sex change operation. Everyone knows but the singer is so talented we just enjoy the music.”

“So the only homosexuals you know about are made by man,” I said.

“We do not think God makes a mistake, no. We have only seen the rich sons who choose for social reasons to take that life style,” he said.

“The most important thing you say is that in your country you would never harm a homosexual,” I said.

“Never, no!”

“But,” I asked, “what about as the small towns and villages where everyone knows your business and watch as your children begin to age and die? What is happening in the suburbs and cities?”

“That is happening now,” he said. “We will see.”

“May I say again that maybe your youngest will be homosexual. That is how many came to a new understanding.”

“That has yet to be our experience. In the meantime, we cannot go back to Africa and say that The United Methodist Church is for homosexuality. It will hurt our mission.

“But,” he added, “I will give your words some thought.”

May 1 - The Demonstration?

Late in the afternoon on Tuesday, as the plenary was winding down, suddenly the central aisle in the back of the floor was filled with people wearing rainbow stoles, carrying signs about rights for homosexuals.

A friend leaned over to me and said, “That’s awful timing!”

As the demonstrators surrounded the communion table in the middle of the floor, the bishop offered a prayer with conciliatory elements about the demonstrators in it and adjourned the meeting. There would be nothing occurring in the room for three or four more hours.

Earlier in the day, members of that group had processed quietly between the stands and the bar of the conference wearing their rainbow stoles and carrying their signs. I recognized and counted as friends a number of the demonstrators. The procession drew quiet attention from the visitors. While I noticed many in the visitor stands stood in silent solidarity as the procession went by (I was already standing mainly because I had not found a seat at that point). The plenary was not disturbed in any way. I did not notice if any of the delegates, even the ones wearing a rainbow stole, stood.

It seemed to me that there were rainbow stoles everywhere.

There were also light blue stoles worn mostly by delegates. Those had been distributed at the opening ceremony’s Communion Service, if I remember correctly. I saw no conflict between wearing of the two. Some folks actually did.

I had my red jacket but I didn’t have either kind of stole.

May 2 - Demonstration!

The demonstrators were a lot smarter on Wednesday morning. They waited until just before the break in the plenary session before forming and trooping down the center aisle to form around the communion table in the center of the floor.

Once again the bishop offered prayer, adjourned the session and announced that police might be called to assist in clearing the floor. He announced the session would not convene until after the lunch break hour.

I was just entering the plenary when the demonstrators took off down the aisle. I asked a friend wearing a rainbow stole about what was happening and why he hadn’t joined the group. He said his wife was down there and he would probably join them for part of the time.

I asked if there was any negotiating going on to see if the demonstration could be moderated. The threat of police action was not a good thing.

He pointed at a corner of the group where it appeared a small number stood just slightly separated from the rest. “They’re negotiating now. I doubt the settlement will include any clearing of the floor by the police. No one wants to have that hit the papers because it would.”

“Maybe some of the demonstrators?” I asked.

“I won’t discount that but they are a pretty disciplined bunch and are not likely to go that far. They have their credibility on the line and don’t want to appear to be spurring violence in others. Disrupting the morning session is as far as they are likely to go, though their starting point in the negotiations is to stay there through the day if necessary,” he said.

I thought the whole scene was what it appeared to be. I wondered later if it was a pre-arranged “dance” where the bishops and the demonstrators already knew what would happen.

I left to return to my “office” and continue studying the pre-conference materials and taking care of some correspondence.

When I returned after lunch, the demonstrators who had been singing and generally enjoying themselves in the middle of the floor when I left were no longer there.

What I found were participants of the group standing at the respective entrances to the plenary space, holding crime scene tapes! They didn’t block the entrances but they didn’t go away. I believe they held their positions throughout the rest of General Conference.

I didn’t follow up on how the negotiations went. I spent my time writing the article just below entitled “Caucuses” for UM-Insight.

Update: Several demonstrators said they had been bullied. That made the news but I have no independent information about that.