February 8, 2023

Delegates Proud of Important Resolutions, Express Gratitude

To our United Methodist Family:

It is widely understood that resolutions adopted at Jurisdictional Conference are aspirational and non-binding. They neither create nor authorize polity. We use words such as “implore” and “urge,” with intentionality. They express a depth of passion, but they do not mandate a particular course of action.

Yet, aspirational resolutions do serve an important purpose. They offer a statement of shared values and give voice to a desire for change. Most often, they express an eagerness to work toward a new and more Christ-like way of being in mission, ministry, and/or covenant community with each other. They matter.

We are General and Jurisdictional Conference delegates who, because of our care for one another during a global pandemic, have been unable to serve in our delegate roles until last Fall. Allow us to share part of that experience.

In November of 2022, as all 5 United Methodist jurisdictions gathered for Jurisdictional Conferences, an important thing was in place; a new level of collaboration. In the prior months, a representative group of centrist and progressive delegate leaders throughout the U.S. had been meeting. It probably looked a little different in each jurisdiction, but we invited the Holy Spirit to guide our steps and then scheduled opportunities to get to know each other. We shared stories, confessed hurt and fear, and named goals. And, across all 5 jurisdictions, we wrote and endorsed 3 resolutions that would be on the agenda at every event. We arrived at our respective conferences simultaneously sad about the unfolding splintering, nervous about the unknowns, and excited about what a future UMC could look like. We were prepared to contribute to the process (which requires some courage, y’all), and we were committed to supporting each other. The goal was to adopt hope-filled legislation and elect strong episcopal leaders who shared our values. Again, while it looked a little different in each setting, the collective legislative outcomes were, indeed, full of hope.

In all 5 jurisdictions we adopted a resolution that values leadership with integrity. In all 5 jurisdictions we adopted a resolution that values global regionalization. And in all 5 jurisdictions we adopted a resolution that supports centering justice and empowerment for LGBTQIA+ people.

It’s important to note that, in the Southeastern Jurisdiction, a delegate challenged all three resolutions before they had even been brought before the voting body. It was a struggle to have them heard at all.

We’d like to lift up the resolution entitled, “Queer Delegates’ Call to Center Justice and Empowerment for LGBTQIA+ People In The UMC.” It was written by 46 delegates who identify as queer, and cheered on by countless non-delegate United Methodists throughout our pews and pulpits. Its adoption across all of the United States was meaningful, to say the very least. To then have its passage challenged in 3 of our 5 jurisdictions (NCJ, SCJ, and SEJ) was unfortunate. However, to be perfectly honest, we had to later remind ourselves that it had been challenged at all. The goodness and righteousness in that moment of adoption was so deeply seared into our hearts and memories that the request for a Bishop's Rule of Law had fallen away. We had forgotten. To be clear, we appreciate that our United Methodist polity provides a path to challenge what might be harmful or against the rules. But, in this case, nothing can diminish that moment or silence its message. No matter the (pending) Judicial Council ruling, our delegates, across all 5 jurisdictions, have spoken. In historic fashion, we have enthusiastically named a value of a future UMC that is more diverse, equitable, and inclusive. Thanks be to God.

It was a moment of prophetic witness we will continue to draw from as we make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

Sincerely,

Submitters of the Queer Delegate Caucus resolution from jurisdictions in which it was challenged.

Jesi Lipp, South Central Jurisdiction
Adam Philley, South Central Jurisdiction
Shandon Klein, South Central Jurisdiction
Caleb Parker, Southeastern Jurisdiction
Antony Larry, Southeastern Jurisdiction
Rye Standifer, Southeastern Jurisdiction
Derrick Scott III, Southeastern Jurisdiction
Helen Ryde, Southeastern Jurisdiction
Matt Dailey, Southeastern Jurisdiction
Rushing Kimball, Southeastern Jurisdiction
Jessica Barber Scott, Southeastern Jurisdiction
Walker Brault, North Central Jurisdiction
Rev. Gregory Gross, North Central Jurisdiction
Rev. Britt Cox, North Central Jurisdiction
Alberto Hidalgo, North Central Jurisdiction
Bill Brownson, North Central Jurisdiction
Bobbi Ruddock, North Central Jurisdiction
Rev. Fred Lewis, North Central Jurisdiction

Submitters from the Southeastern Jurisdiction in which additional (all three) resolutions were challenged.

Jim Allen, “Leading with Integrity”
Martha Stokes, “Support of a U.S. Regional Conference”
Lisa Yebuah, “Support of a U.S. Regional Conference”