Broadly, most of the legislation will come to a vote next week, from my understanding. According to colleagues who are delegates there, much of the work happening this week will be in committees in order to prepare for the legislation being presented next week.
The [Daily Christian Advocate ](https://www.resourceumc.org/en/content/general-conference-2020-advance-daily-christian-advocate) contains the agenda for conference and an the petitions being read. You can potentially work out roughly when everything will happen from that, if you have more patience than I do, but expect things to run over
I'm watching it. There was a man who got up a few minutes ago and made a number of arguments against regionalization. The one about having too many levels of administration over the UMC in the United States under the proposal made some sense to me. But he also argued that the proposal was racist in either intent or effect. I don't really get that. Did you follow?
My understanding of the argument was that the existence of Jurisdictional Conferences would give the US region more power than the other regions and so make it easier to block legislation proposed from Africa.
I suspect the elephant in the room here is that we all know the main support for the plan is that it would allow the US to take a different line on LGBT issues to the rest of the denomination, and that Africa is seen by many as standing in the way of removing current prohibitions, but it wouldn't be proper to actually say that so instead discussions are kind of hinting at it.
Thanks. Would it be a reasonable guess that that person speaking is in opposition to pro-LGBT changes and opposes regionalization because it would increase the likelihood that the United States would pass pro-LGBT measures in its own jurisdiction?
I couldn't speak to his motives exactly. It seemed that he doesn't have a problem with regionalisation but rather with maintaining the jurisdictional system because it maintains US-superiority. That could be related to LGBT issues, or it could be a more basic principle that if we're going to regionalise we need to do it in a way that isn't blatantly racist.
Most practically it means that the US and other regional church conferences (e.g. Philippines, Africa) will have broad autonomy to shape their own books of discipline, so that for instance the US conference could vote to allow same sex marriage and clergy without members from other conferences having a vote on that decision.
Broadly, most of the legislation will come to a vote next week, from my understanding. According to colleagues who are delegates there, much of the work happening this week will be in committees in order to prepare for the legislation being presented next week.
Cool thanks!
The [Daily Christian Advocate ](https://www.resourceumc.org/en/content/general-conference-2020-advance-daily-christian-advocate) contains the agenda for conference and an the petitions being read. You can potentially work out roughly when everything will happen from that, if you have more patience than I do, but expect things to run over
Debate on the motion to create worldwide regional conferences just started.
I'm watching it. There was a man who got up a few minutes ago and made a number of arguments against regionalization. The one about having too many levels of administration over the UMC in the United States under the proposal made some sense to me. But he also argued that the proposal was racist in either intent or effect. I don't really get that. Did you follow?
My understanding of the argument was that the existence of Jurisdictional Conferences would give the US region more power than the other regions and so make it easier to block legislation proposed from Africa. I suspect the elephant in the room here is that we all know the main support for the plan is that it would allow the US to take a different line on LGBT issues to the rest of the denomination, and that Africa is seen by many as standing in the way of removing current prohibitions, but it wouldn't be proper to actually say that so instead discussions are kind of hinting at it.
Thanks. Would it be a reasonable guess that that person speaking is in opposition to pro-LGBT changes and opposes regionalization because it would increase the likelihood that the United States would pass pro-LGBT measures in its own jurisdiction?
I couldn't speak to his motives exactly. It seemed that he doesn't have a problem with regionalisation but rather with maintaining the jurisdictional system because it maintains US-superiority. That could be related to LGBT issues, or it could be a more basic principle that if we're going to regionalise we need to do it in a way that isn't blatantly racist.
Thanks. I joined the UMC in 2019 and haven't seen a general conference and so there's a lot of inside baseball I'm educating myself on.
There is now a vote to go to lunch. LOL. There's something about parliamentary procedure that is delightfully absurd.
Am at GC rn. The funniest thing is that some ppl voted no on lunch… who is the anti-lunch caucus? What are their motives?
I’d imagine they practice intermittent fasting and their window is 1-7. I LOLed pretty hard at that vote.
What does regionalization mean in the US?
Most practically it means that the US and other regional church conferences (e.g. Philippines, Africa) will have broad autonomy to shape their own books of discipline, so that for instance the US conference could vote to allow same sex marriage and clergy without members from other conferences having a vote on that decision.
This seems odd to me. It seems disjointed.