Why Was the 2012 General Conference So Unproductive and Dysfunctional? (Part 3)

on December 12, 2012
Pro-Lifer at United Methodist General Conference in Tampa, Florida
Pro-lifers send a clear message at United Methodist General Conference in Tampa, Florida (Photo credit: Institute on Religion and Democracy)

Part 3: Protest Making Legislative Change

[12/14 Editors note: Reading the “Why Was the 2012 General Conference So Unproductive and Dysfunctional” series for the first time? Here is Part 1Part 2, and Part 4.]

By John Lomperis

The window of opportunity for delegates to do their work was further narrowed by the antics of activists of the Common Witness Coalition (MFSA, RMN, etc.) and allied groups.

Dozens of shrill protesters against biblical standards for sexual self-control, most of whom were not delegates and not all of whom were even necessarily Methodist, invaded the delegates-only seating area on Wednesday, May 2, for an illegal demonstration, loudly drowning out the presiding bishop while he attempted to close the session in prayer.

The next day, following the conference’s decisive re-affirmation of the UMC’s biblical statement on sexual morality (by a significantly larger majority than the previous General Conference), the same activists again stormed the delegates-only section to take it over for yet another fundamentally self-righteous protest. Their refusal to leave, despite repeated, gracious pleas from the presiding bishop, forced the conference to shut down. This second protest cost the conference two hours of valuable plenary time (when it was at the point of really needing to make every minute count) and an estimated $180,000. It is worth noting that RMN has received heavy funding from secular pro-homosexuality groups seeking to take over the UMC (so they could surely afford to reimburse the UMC if they had the integrity to offer), and that the secular gay-rights group, GLAAD, “was on the ground at the United Methodist General Conference, supporting efforts to change the denominational policy.”

Our bishops reportedly considered taking decisive actions, including seeking police help, to end the forceful occupation of the conference floor and/or prevent further such invasions, but ultimately did not do so. Instead, several liberal bishops went to negotiate with the protesters, now led by Amy DeLong, as they held the General Conference hostage. (DeLong is the openly partnered lesbian minister who a church trial in the liberal Wisconsin Annual Conference notoriously refused to discipline for “being a self-avowed, practicing homosexual” – which is absolutely forbidden for UMC clergy – and who currently leads her own self-serving protest group.)

The occupiers conditioned their allowing business to resume on our bishops eventually submitting to their ultimatums:

  • Bishop Wenner, President of the Council of Bishops, would open the next session expressing agreement with liberals’ argument that affirmation of biblical morality harms GLBT people (and WITHOUT acknowledging others’ pain in such controversies).
  • This would be followed by a prayer offered by a United Methodist minister meeting DeLong’s criteria of (1) being openly gay, (2) currently serving in a particular kind of appointment, and (3) speaking in a prominent location specified by DeLong.
  • Delegates would be forbidden from even considering any other “sexuality-related” petition that afternoon.
  • A special meeting of the Agenda Committee would be held that afternoon, called by DeLong and including representatives of the Renewal and Reform Coalition, to “negotiate” the manipulation of the rest of the General Conference agenda.

Conference leaders submitted to all of the above. Claiming to speak/pray “on behalf of” all bishops, Bishop Wenner dutifully opened the next session with the assertion that gay and lesbian people had “been hurt by actions of the General Conference and by the polity of The United Methodist Church,” avoided acknowledging anyone else’s pain, and in line with the protestors’ theology, directly contradicted clear New Testament teaching about the meaning of phrase “child of God.”  With such ready compliance, it is no wonder that DeLong felt emboldened to subsequently boast that “[t]he bishops [were] on notice….”

This afternoon meeting—which included legislative committee chairs, the Agenda Committee, and representatives of the General Conference Commission, the bishops’ Unity Task Force, liberal caucuses, the Renewal and Reform Coalition, and JustPeace—agreed to transfer all “sexuality-related” petitions to the end of the agenda list, ensuring that there would be no time for them.  The protesters had already eaten up the time scheduled for such petitions, and much other pressing business remained for the final day.

This decision basically tabled three categories of petitions. Several would have revoked current denominational policies aligning requirements for clergy conduct and the use of apportioned denominational funds with biblical standards on sexual morality. Since sexual liberalism manifestly lacked majority support, voting on these petitions would have accomplished little. Other proposals would have strengthened enforcement mechanisms for such standards. Theologically orthodox United Methodists were eager for such badly needed reforms. Also tabled were four other liberal sexuality-related petitions, which would have mandated pension benefits for homosexual partners of church employees, broadly endorsed various GLBT-friendly public policies, and imposed a radical system of unaccountable membership-on-demand.

DeLong and company also demanded that petitions to end our denomination’s scandalous affiliation with the strident Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (a move the relevant committee had supported in a decisive, historic vote) be labeled “sexuality-related” and moved to the back of the agenda with the other tabled petitions. Despite the strong objections of renewal leaders and even some relatively fair-minded liberal denominational officials, the Agenda Committee agreed to classify RCRC as “a sexuality issue.” The committee had also decided to overrule the anti-RCRC petitions’ original “global” classification in order to treat them as “U.S.-only” issues, even though: they dealt with a global denominational agency, UMC leaders from Africa, Europe, and the Philippines were outspokenly eager for the General Conference to pass them, and they involved a resolution that explicitly mentions “international” issues, the United Nations, and South Africa. Under the new rules, classifying RCRC as a “U.S.-only” issue provided a useful pretext for demoting these petitions’ priority. Moreover, the relevant legislative committee chair, Rev. Molly Vetter, used her position to have the anti-RCRC petitions deemed low priorities. Throughout the final day, DeLong and her allies sought to intimidate delegates and conference leaders by being very visibly primed and ready to fulfill their threat to forcibly shut the General Conference down in a THIRD illegal protest so that delegates would be unable to even discuss RCRC. But the anti-RCRC petitions were far enough down on the agenda list (albeit not at the very end as DeLong had demanded) that the Agenda Committee expected that there would not be time to get to them, EVEN IF it had not been for the eleventh-hour chaos caused by the Judicial Council’s striking down the compromise restructuring plan. And indeed, time ran out for plenary consideration of RCRC, which gave the bullying protesters what they wanted.

Furthermore, an important petition, supported overwhelmingly in committee, would have helpfully amended the UMC Discipline’s statement on “Our Theological Task” (¶104) with thoughtful, nuanced, and very Wesleyan affirmation of “Scripture as the primary source and criterion for doctrine” while dispelling popular misunderstandings about Albert Outler’s “Wesleyan Quadrilateral.” But on the final morning, the Agenda Committee decided to kill this liberal-opposed petition by grouping it with the tabled “sexuality-related” petitions (despite that petition making no mention of sexuality).

In subsequent newsletters and online postings, the liberal caucuses shamelessly celebrated the any-means-necessary way in which they had “won” in defeating key petitions, not by substantive dialogue or honest persuasion, but rather by resorting to threats and raw physical force to prevent delegates from voting on them. One RMN affiliate praised the “courageous act of direct action taken by LGBT activists on the conference floor on the penultimate day” who “occupied the floor and forced the conference to adjourn,” “let business resume only after conference leaders promised that they would not allow” sexuality-related petitions, including the RCRC ones, “to be debated and voted on,” and “enforced that agreement by letting conference leaders know that if any of these proposals did come up, they would immediately reoccupy the floor and prevent further business.” DeLong similarly boasted of how her protest efforts “held at bay” petitions she did not like.  One of the protest leaders, an MFSA member and clergy delegate from a liberal annual conference blogged: “Hey! Protest making legislative change! Awesome.”

Meanwhile, dozens of faithful, grassroots United Methodists had taken extensive time off from their jobs and homes, day after day, to respectfully urge delegates to have compassion for unborn children, and their mothers, threatened by the very real physical harm of abortion, an issue on which our UMC’s witness is improving but still very painfully flawed. In contrast to DeLong and the Common Witness Coalition, the pro-lifers studiously respected the rules that were supposed to apply to everybody. Unlike the liberal protesters, these United Methodists treated everyone respectfully and had no interest in such tactics as threats, intimidation, ultimatums, invading others’ space, disrupting business time, or drowning out bishops’ prayers. They simply wore “Do No Harm” T-shirts, offered literature in the designated areas, quietly sat in the visitors’ seats, and prayed.

We saw our bishops and General Conference leaders seemingly falling over backwards to promote sympathy and accommodation for the feelings of the destructive activists promoting the largely selfish cause of sex outside of marriage. Yet these same leaders then largely avoided similarly extending compassion towards the manipulatively, harshly disregarded pro-life United Methodists who form the praying, worship-attending, sacrificial giving, serving, and witnessing backbone of their congregations (let alone compassion towards their inherently selfless cause of defending the most vulnerable).

  1. Comment by Dwight Upton on December 12, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    One should not submit to ransom demands. There is no limit then to the demands to come.

  2. Comment by Daryl Densford on December 12, 2012 at 10:40 pm

    How could a church succumb to such un-Godly, un-Christian, disrespectful behavior? How could those who claim to be “Christian” act in such a way? This sounds more like a scene from those eastern European or Asian Parliaments that break into fights than a Church Conference! Lord, help us all!

  3. Comment by Pudentiana on December 19, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    Yes, Daryl, how indeed? This is not the fruit of the Spirit. I would, instead, suggest that we have more tares than wheat at upper levels of the denomination.

  4. Comment by Bart Gingerich on December 13, 2012 at 1:13 pm


    As a fellow worker in the GC trenches with you, I’ve really appreciated these exposés you’ve been writing up.

  5. Comment by Ben Welliver on December 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    If there was a religious thesausus, “wimps” would be right next to “mainline clergy.” Spinally challenged, low-T

  6. Comment by Pudentiana on December 13, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    John, your articles are a long-time coming. The irreverent and manipulative methods of those who stand against vital Christianity and promote progressive theology has been winked at too long. It seems that the almighty dollar and appointment power have caused those in the know to become shy.

  7. Comment by Gary on December 13, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    Good article. This is the kind of behavior that the council of bishops could have and should have stopped a long time ago – it is somewhat akin to not disciplining your children and then wondering what the heck happened when they grow up to be rude and selfish and disrespectful.

  8. Pingback by Why Was the 2012 General Conference So Unproductive and Dysfunctional? (Part 4) « Juicy Ecumenism on December 14, 2012 at 10:33 am

    […] [Editors note: Reading the "Why Was the 2012 General Conference So Unproductive and Dysfunctional" series for the first time? Here is Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.] […]

  9. Comment by Bart Simmons on December 17, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    The Methodist denominaiton in the Book of Discipline……indicated a reluctance to approve abortion. So why does the UMC continue as a member of the RCRC? Why do Methodist preachers never preach against abortion? Why did the Bishops give the pro-life group the cold shoulder at conference? The reason….the Methodist Church is not reluctant to approve abortion but fully embraces abortion. Part of Methodist church’s Progressive agenda is their “Reproductive Justice” which advocates abortion as a woman’s right. Don’t be fooled by what the Book of Discipline states.

  10. Comment by Bart Simmons on December 18, 2012 at 10:38 am

    The last paragraph of Part III of John Lomperis’ review of the 2012 General Conference says volumes about our Bishops and the state of our denomination. Many of our Bishops have no conviction. “The backbone of the preaching of Christ is a conviction of the Truth of Christ.” – Spurgeon. The wasted 2012 Conference was a result of Bishops that were more concerned about their political position in the denomination than showing conviction for the Truth.

  11. Comment by Darrell Borders on December 19, 2012 at 8:16 am

    Just because the bishops did not get their way does not mean that GC21012 was a bust. Just the opposite!

  12. Pingback by Wealthy Caucus Offers to Pay UMC Clergy Who Break Ordination Vows - Juicy Ecumenism on March 17, 2015 at 3:04 pm

    […] secular supporters appear to have any interest in even partially reimbursing our denomination for their illegal protest that shut down the 2012 General Conference and cost an estimated $180,000 in apportionments taken from our congregations’ offering […]

  13. Pingback by Harming Others in the Name of Opposing Harm - Juicy Ecumenism on January 23, 2016 at 7:01 am

    […] and Cabrera expressed their groups’ commitment to “block legislation” they didn’t like.  At the last General Conference, we saw “reconciling” movement activists adopt an any-means-necessary ethos encompassing […]

  14. Pingback by If UMAction Acted Like Liberal UMC Caucuses - Juicy Ecumenism on February 12, 2016 at 7:02 am

    […] In turn, we would brag about putting the bishops “on notice,” not showing any respect for the office of the very church leaders who had just bent over backwards to enable, encourage, and do anything but say “no” to us. We would further interrupt the official meetings to protest how we were somehow “excluded” amidst all the pandering, and decry how “violence was done to us” if they let a single person express even the most mild and indirect disagreement with us. Then we would subsequently brag of our victories, declaring to our supporters that our tactics could not possibly be immoral since they achieved results we wanted. We would, like the founder of the MFSA movement’s “Dream UMC” social-media project, declare: “Hey! Protest making legislative change! Awesome.” […]

  15. Pingback by Some Facts General Conference Delegates Should Know about the Connectional Table (CT) - Juicy Ecumenism on February 19, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    […] documented by United Methodist News Service, myself, and Love Prevails itself, the tactics this group has used with the Connectional Table and General […]

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.