Why Was My Petition Invalidated?

by

A Way Forward

A funny thing has happened at the Committee on Reference on the way to the special session of the United Methodist General Conference. This committee made what I identify as a recommendation to GC2019 on which petitions are in harmony with the purpose stated in the call for the special session and which are not.

Now, mind you, I'm actually fairly pleased with both the process and the outcome, but in one instance I'm baffled, though I hasten to add, not distressed, by the decision. I submitted a petition I called A United Way Forward, and for reasons we'll never likely know in full, since he doesn't have to provide his rationale, the Secretary of the General Conference broke it into pieces, turning it into several separate petitions, meaning nobody gets a view of the complete proposal. The petition was nothing more nor less than the exact same proposal presented to GC16 by the Connectional Table, called A Third Way, with the addition of a provision for the regionalization of the episcopacy.

This petition was ruled not to be in harmony, and since the One Church Plan was ruled to be in harmony and it's arguably just a reworking of A Third Way, that really seems to be an irreconcilable difference in judgment or application of criteria. It seems that any proposal for changes in the episcopacy were ruled not to be in harmony. But, wait a second–The One Church Plan made pretty much the same proposal for regionalization of the episcopacy!!

In the report of the Commission on a Way Forward on page 12 there is the following statement in the conversation on the One Church Plan:

"The One Church plan also asks the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA) to find a means consistent with The Book of Discipline to assure that each jurisdictional conference or area supports the costs of its own episcopal leader and offices. All jurisdictional conference bishops will bepaid the same salary, but the area where a bishop is assigned will, through a process developed by GCFA, provide the funding, similar to how episcopal housing allowances are now managed."

Now, mind you, the Commission on a Way Forward was unable to find a way to get this provision into its legislation, but the provision is in its report. So, if it's in harmony for the CWF, why was it not in harmony in my petition? Can it be that the source makes a difference?

United Methodist layman Lonnie D. Brooks of Anchorage, Alaska, has been a delegate to General Conference.