Some of the Amendments

Got this info from the Confessing Movement website
http://confessingumc.org/confessing_movement_umc/


…The series of petitions that will enable constitutional amendments that would make the church in the United States a regional conference passed by the necessary 2/3 majority. The amendments would allow for a General Conference made up somewhat similarly as our General Conference now is, that would deal with issues of a world-wide nature, but then in addition provide for Regional Conferences (similar to Central Conferences now) that would deal with issues of a regional nature. Since much of what General Conference now does relates to the U.S. church primarily, those U.S. specific matters would be dealt with by the U.S. Regional Conference. The problem is determining what is of a worldwide nature and what is of a “regional” nature. A study committee will work out the details. Evangelicals generally oppose this amendment (at least at this time—one argument was, let the study committee show us the details first and then let us do the constitutional amendment if it looks right). The matter of the Social Principles (what is really at stake is the definition of the family and the matter of homosexuality which are in the Social Principles) immediately came up in conference debate. Do the Social Principles apply to the church globally or does each region set its own Social Principles? It is very obvious to all observers that the church’s definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, as well as the matter of whether the practice of homosexuality is to be approved, might well change if the Central Conference votes were removed. In other words, some are arguing that while the church in Africa may see homosexuality as a sin, the church in America sees it differently. The matter is not yet settled. Each annual conference will need to vote on this since a constitutional amendment needs to be ratified by 2/3 of the annual conference members.

+++

…Another constitutional amendment, which would have tremendous implications would change Article IV (p. 22 of the 2004 Discipline), entitled Inclusiveness of the Church. The article was placed at the time of the EUB merger in order to emphasize that the church is open to persons of different races, national origin, or economic condition. A sentence in the paragraph now reads: All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its services...and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members…. The amendment, basically, would remove the words without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition… to make the paragraph read: All persons shall be eligible to attend its worship services…and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members… The seriousness of the change cannot be overemphasized. This is being called the “No Standards, No Conversion” amendment. The purpose of the paragraph is changed from not discriminating against people on the basis of who they are, to not discriminating on the basis of anything, which could be, what they believe, whether or not they are converted, whether or not they obviously have ulterior motives. While an incident regarding denial of membership to a practicing homosexual triggered the change, the change would reach far beyond just the matter of practicing homosexuals. This will require annual conference ratification, so members of annual conferences will have a chance to vote on this.

…Some observers believe another sentence in the amendment could be used to declare the ban on ordaining self-avowed practicing homosexuals and performing same-gender unions or marriages as unconstitutional. The sentence reads, “In The United Methodist Church no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body of the Church.” Are we not “structured so as to exclude” gay and lesbian members from ordained ministry and same-gender unions? Given the new makeup of the Judicial Council, it would not be far-fetched to see them overturn our existing prohibitions based on this amendment. And again it would go beyond homosexuality, as it appears we could not exclude any group for any reason (such as theological differences or racist practices).
This amendment will require annual conference ratification, so members of annual conferences will have a chance to vote on this.