Verbatim Transcript of Unity Resolution
Friday, May 7, 2004 

BISHOP SPRAGUE: Those nominated have been elected. Thank you.
Now I would like to seek the will of the body. All of us know that there has been much discussion, significant pain all over the house among all of us about mattes related to the unity of The United Methodist Church. While many of us were sleeping, the Spirit was not. Neither were many of our colleagues, representative of many different theological points of view. As a result, two leaders of our church, who are not members, not delegates of this General Conference, have requested, and others who have worked with them have requested on their behalf, permission for Drs. Bruce Hinson—pardon me—Bruce Robinson—Robbins, I know Bruce well, pardon me—Bruce Robbins, and to Bill Hinson, to come and stand before us in order that a statement might be made. 

Would the body grant permission for these two leaders of our church to come, stand before us, and make a statement? If you would, vote yes. If you would not, vote no. Let us vote now. [Yes, 718; No, 186; Abstain, 7]

You have welcomed the two brothers, and I would invite them to the podium with gratitude to the house at this time.

BRUCE ROBBINS: Good morning. Sisters and brothers, I’ve been asked to give an account of some informal and remarkable conversations that have occurred this week that may help put in perspective some of the discussions of amicable separation; and I’ve asked Bill Hinson to be with me to help correct and refine any of this—these personal observations of the conversations that I’m making.

In one of the legislative committee meetings last week, Judicial Administration, two of the delegates, Laura Easto of Baltimore-Washington Conference, and Derik Hines from West Ohio, found they were voting sometimes on opposite sides of the issues; and they began talking amongst themselves. And as one of them put it, “God got under our skin and suggested that there might be, must be, a better way.” They came to several groups. They came to the General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns and to JustPeace, and they asked for some help in trying to sort through these thoughts of theirs.
 The two co-chairs of a task force of the commission, Greg Stover and Janice Love, became involved; and they were able to make contact with some of the leadership of organizations of the church representing differing perspectives on this issue, organizations such as Good News and the Confessing Movement and Methodist Federation for Social Action and Affirmation. And it led to a conversation on Monday night of approximately 20 persons representing the leadership of these organizations.

There were several hours of deep discussion that occurred. I would call it a holy conferencing. There was criticism and there was acknowledgment of the ways that we write and characterize one another. It had felt like the conversation was just beginning when we were past midnight and needed to adjourn, and we suggested a hope to meet on Tuesday as well and had tentatively set a time at lunch to meet. We wanted to see if the Holy Spirit may enlighten any of us during the night.

Tuesday morning was difficult on the floor, as you may remember. The noon meeting itself was fairly brief. Many persons had other obligations that did not permit them to come, particularly from some of the more liberal organizations represented. However, in that discussion, some informal proposals were made of how we might proceed at General Conference rather than the contentious debate, which we were experiencing. Some people felt that some form of holy conferencing of all of the delegates could be arranged. Others looked to some kind of separation, perhaps, that could be amicable and just amongst us. And others looked to trying to create some kind of space that would help us move forward.

These were all suggestions, informal suggestions at the table. Several of them had papers and writing that accompanied it, and one of those or two of those papers were distributed amongst the group gathered there with never an intention that they be far more widely distributed. And one of those papers was a suggestion some of you have seen on amicable separation. There was no consensus reached in the group whatsoever. It was an informal brainstorming discussion that we had.

On Thursday morning, Bill Hinson had addressed the Good News breakfast and spoke of the pain that he observed and experienced in that meeting, indeed pain that was shared with each of us as we heard the deep divisions that occurred amongst us and the very differing perspectives we represented. And his perception of the pain was there, and some suggestions of perhaps a separation were made at that time; and that caught on, and you know all the discussions that occurred informally during the day about that and suggestions of a possible resolution as well that never had serious intention, I believe, of coming forward.

I believe that everyone at that table of those informal conversations, and I believe that many of you, are seeking the discernment of the Holy Spirit to find out what is the authentic unity we seek as United Methodists gathered together. And I want to take this opportunity also to thank Laura and Derik for the risks they took to try to find a different way and come before us and risk what are some difficult and—conversations for us to have.

And I want to close by just reminding myself and us of the prayer of Paul in Ephesians that God is at the power—who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than we can ask or imagine. And, I think, as a result of these conversations, there is a greater hope amongst many of us that the Holy Spirit may speak to us as we try to move forward to discern what is the way that God wills for The United Methodist Church.

Thank you. I hope these comments are helpful to you, and I turn to Bill, if you have anything you’d like to add.

BILL HINSON: Thank you, Bruce. Any authentic struggle toward wholeness must be marked by integrity at every point along the way. And I deeply appreciate Bruce Robbins’ spirit and his willingness to come and make this statement and clear the air of rumor and innuendo as he explains how this paper came to be circulated on the floor of General Conference. I find that very refreshing and very helpful and am deeply grateful to this wonderful spirit.

BISHOP SPRAGUE: We are extremely grateful to the two of you and to those persons named who I would invite to stand at this point, those who have been a part of this dialogue, hoping to bring us to this point. The names that Bruce called, would you stand please?
(applause)

Now on behalf of the Committee on Agenda, I would like to turn to mic 4 to the Reverend Dr. John Schol, who brings a resolution for the body that has passed muster, that is to say, it comes through the process of the Committee on Agenda. And as John is coming, again, we thank these two brothers for what they have done on behalf of us. Can we greet them with gratitude.

(applause)

All right. Mic 4 please. Mic 4. Please identify yourselves as you speak, if you would.

KRISTINA J. GONZALEZ (Pacific Northwest): I’m Kristina Gonzalez, Pacific Northwest Conference, lay, Western Jurisdiction.

JON R. GRAY (Missouri): Jon R. Gray, lay delegate from the Missouri Conference, South Central Jurisdiction.

MARY ALICE MASSEY (Florida): I’m Mary Alice Massey, lay delegate from the Florida delegation, Southeastern Jurisdiction.

BEATRICE FOFONAH (Sierra Leone): Beatrice Fofonah, lay delegate, Sierra Leone Annual Conference.

LUIS F. REYES (Northern Illinois): Luis Felipe Reyes, Northern Illinois, clergy, North Central Jurisdiction.

JOHN SCHOL (Eastern Pennsylvania): John Schol, Eastern Pennsylvania, Northeastern Jurisdiction. We, from the global church, move before you today the following: As United Methodists, we remain in covenant with one another, even in the midst of disagreement, and affirm our commitment to work together for a common mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ throughout the world.

BISHOP SPRAGUE: All right. The resolution is before us. Would you like to speak?

SCHOL: I think it speaks for itself, Bishop.

BISHOP SPRAGUE: Thank you. Does anyone—I do see a card. Yes, please? Mic 1. Mic 1.

DARREN R. CUSHMAN-WOOD (South Indiana): Bishop, there are—

BISHOP SPRAGUE: Please identify yourself.

CUSHMAN-WOOD: Darren Cushman-Wood from South Indiana.

BISHOP SPRAGUE: Thank you.

CUSHMAN-WOOD: Yesterday—I speak in favor of this to send a clear message to our local churches, because in South Indiana, there are people there deeply disturbed about what is going on here. And on our delegation, I know that we hear often, “All of this talk about schism.” I rise to speak against it purely on a personal level, because for myself, I do not know where I would choose, that doctrinally I am conservative as they come. But on my ethics, I am as liberal as you are; and I feel that that seeming contradiction comes out of my Wesleyan tradition and what I’ve inherited from The United Methodist Church.

Maybe I need to have an adjustment in my heart between my doctrines and my ethics, but that kind of surgery needs to be done by whom John Wesley called the great physician. I do not trust the surgeons who are in this room to perform that surgery on me or on my local congregation, so I urge us to send this very clear message of unity back to our local churches.

BISHOP SPRAGUE: All right. That is a speech for the resolution. Yes? Please, mic no. 4; and then I see others standing. Mic 4.

STANLEY R. COPELAND (North Texas): Bishop, Stan Copeland, North Texas Conference.

BISHOP SPRAGUE: Yes.

COPELAND: I want to say that in the course of our legislative committees and in the course of debate on this floor, I’ve often found myself feeling like I was in the sea of distrust and drowning. And in the last few minutes, what has happened here, to me, has been monumental for our church; and what Bruce and Bill have done together before us and what we have just heard in the form of this resolution, I think is huge for us.

I long for the day when we come to General Conference and we deal with matters concerning genocide in the Sudan with a strong voice, and when we uplift the mission of our church in all that we do unashamedly. Not discounting the conflict in our midst. We have to deal with that, but I dream of the day when the symbols of our sacraments are not politicized but are lifted up as what brings us together as one body, making disciples of Jesus Christ and dealing with the issues that we face in this world with passion and in the mission and Spirit of our Lord.
 I support this.

BISHOP SPRAGUE: Thank you very much. I see a card in the back. We’ve had two speeches. We can have two others. If there is a speech against, I need to entertain it now. Is there speech against? Yes. Here, mic 2, and then I’ll come back here. This is a speech against. Mic 2.

WILLIAM T. MCALILLY (Mississippi): Bishop, actually this is more of an amendment than a speech against.

BISHOP SPRAGUE: All right. It is in order.

MCALILLY: I would amend that—since I don’t have the resolution in front of me—I’m Bill McAlilly, Mississippi Conference.

BISHOP SPRAGUE: Thank you. Thank you.

MCALILLY: Clergy. There is another voice in this General Conference that is—was not represented at this table that I might like to speak to and add to the dialogue if I can figure out a way to do that. My amendment would basically be that I would amend the resolution that those of us who are neither on the right or the left be included at the table. And I’d like to speak to that if I get a second.
(applause)

BISHOP SPRAGUE: All right, then, let’s hold the applause. I think there is joy in many hearts. Let’s hold our applause—

MCALILLY: And I also (unintelligible)—

BISHOP SPRAGUE: Yes, please. Let’s—we’ll try the wording. Let’s hear your speech.

MCALILLY: And I also would like to thank Brothers Robbins and Hinson for their statement. There’s another group in our denomination, some of whom are delegates here; others who are faithful United Methodists who are not represented nor identified with any coalition. We are, as Bishop Coyner wrote a few years ago, “the Methodist middle.” We are not organized and have no other agenda, save offering Christ to a hurting world. This group includes women, men, children, youth, lay, and clergy, maybe even a couple of bishops.

Together with those of differing viewpoints, faithfully serving United Methodist churches, we serve small, medium, large churches. We serve in agencies. We serve throughout the church. We teach Sunday school. We serve in food pantries, clothes closets. We build Habitat houses and serve worldwide through United Methodist Volunteers in Mission. We have a passion for evangelism, and we seek to lift up Christ to persons who are hurting and who are lost and who need the grace of Jesus Christ.

However, more often than not we are silent; and perhaps that is our sin. Silent as other voices speak. Perhaps we’re gripped by fear, fear that if we speak, we will be labeled as the opposition. Fear that we are incapable of preventing our church from being pulled apart at the seams. In our efforts to be faithful collectively, we all of us have created the vision with little hope of ever—

BISHOP SPRAGUE: You need to sum up, sir, please.

MCALILLY: I pray that we can find a way to hold the tension of the opposites; and I would submit to this body that if those of us in the middle can contain those on both sides of the equation, we might be able to find the unity for which we seek. Thank you.

BISHOP SPRAGUE: Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
(applause)

All right. I saw a card in the back. Mic 8. Mic 8. This will be the final speech. The way the resolution is framed, it’s very difficult to amend it with the speech given. I’m going to treat the speech given as an affirmation and as a plea that those who will embrace this in ongoing work will clearly hear and engage, if that is all right with the gentleman who has just spoken. All right. This will be the final speech, and then we will vote. Yes?

LONNIE CHAFIN (Northern Illinois): Thank you, Bishop. Lonnie Chafin, Northern Illinois Conference. Bishop, I’ve been United Methodist all of my life. My family’s been United Methodist since when there were Methodists, the first Methodists in Virginia, included someone from my family. This—I’ve been thinking since I became a General Conference delegate about my grandmother who would eat oatmeal for a week to save money to build schools in Africa, who sacrificed time and energy and resources and everything to build this church. And I feel that I have been given an ark from my grandmother and those who sacrificed and gave and dedicated themselves to this church before; and I have a duty to that ark to carry it forward into the future.

Bishop, I was on the Faith and Order Committee, and you can be sure there was great diversity in opinions; but I tell you I could see that as one person spoke, evidence in their speech was a life of grace. And then someone else would speak, the completely opposite side of the equation, and even in their voice was the evidence of grace, that they knew a life of the Spirit. I think Wesley says that’s all we need to be a church. All we need are people who know grace, who love the Spirit and can be one in the Spirit and unified in that (unintelligible) gift by God—

BISHOP SPRAGUE: (unintelligible)

CHAFIN: So I would encourage us, let’s carry the ark forward. Let’s be one.

BISHOP SPRAGUE: All right. Thank you. Prepare to vote please. We’ve had the four speeches. Point of order. What is the point of order, please? Mic 1. Mic 1.

BEVERLY L. WILKES (Illinois Great Rivers): Bishop Sprague—

BISHOP SPRAGUE: Tell us who you are, please.

WILKES: Beverly Wilkes, Illinois Great Rivers Conference. And I rise to invite us to enact Rule 20.8, which is the call for prayer. When you vote, there’s a sense of win and lose—

BISHOP SPRAGUE: Thank you.

WILKES: —but we are a win here.

BISHOP SPRAGUE: Thank you very, very much. In fact, we have already prepared for prayer in that Barbara will lead us in a song prayer. Let us sing together, and then we will vote.
(song)

BISHOP SPRAGUE: Amen and amen. As we wipe the tears from our eyes, and yet touch the joy that the Spirit is placing in our hearts, let us prepare to vote. Let us vote now. [Yes, 869; No, 41; Abstain, 8]

With gratitude to God and to the many who work so hard, your vote is an overwhelmingly affirmative vote.