A Call for Action

NO. 0925

Not AdoptedNot Adopted

(OPERATIONAL BUSINESS ITEM)

A CALL FOR ACTION
(PROVISIONAL)

WHEREAS, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) honors the individuality and diversity of its various members and expressions of church; is called by God throughout its membership to be a movement for wholeness; and is called to address various issues of a moral, ethical and/or justice nature; and

WHEREAS, the Design of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) states:

37. The general representative body of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) shall be the General Assembly. In all of its worship, deliberation, and ministries, the General Assembly shall seek to manifest the wholeness and unity of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) within the one Body of Christ; and

WHEREAS, several methodologies have been tried over the last forty years to address issues of a moral, ethical and/or justice nature with varying degrees of effectiveness, often ending with contention and strife amid our own part of the Body of Christ rather than fostering new growth in faith or witness; and

WHEREAS, the purposes of General Assembly resolutions have been misinterpreted and misreported by members of media and the general public; and

WHEREAS, the act of voting on controversial issues has received more attention than the process of learning about and discerning what God may be calling Disciples to do in our various settings in response to various moral, ethical and/or justice issues; and

WHEREAS, an average of ten Sense of the Assembly resolutions have come for action over the past two biennia, each allowing only a few speakers on either side of the issue to speak for no more than three minutes prior to a vote of the Assembly, often addressing the General Board's recommendation regarding the original submission itself, further limiting the actual discussion on a moral, ethical or justice issue; and

WHEREAS, the Standing Committee on Renewal and Structural Reform was commissioned by the Administrative Committee of the General Board to consider the effectiveness of Sense of the Assembly Resolutions; and

WHEREAS, the Standing Committee on Renewal and Structural Reform began this work by asking the question "what does it mean to speak to, for and within the church and society" and was empowered by the concept of partnership, accompaniment, and critical presence; and

WHEREAS, the Standing Committee on Renewal and Structural Reform defined a Call for Action as an invitation of the General Assembly to the Church for action on moral, ethical or justice issues that require urgent presence and witness by the Church in all of its expressions; and

WHEREAS, action may include prayer, study, reflection, discernment and response; those activities and roles will vary according to the context in which Disciples are called to serve, and

WHEREAS, all parts are necessary for the proper working of the body such that it builds itself up through love and is able to be effective in the work of ministry (Eph 4:11-16); and

WHEREAS, the Standing Committee on Renewal and Structural Reform found Galatians 5 helpful as a test for how the Assembly could deal with these hard issues while in accord with the Spirit (5:22-23) as opposed to dealing with them in ways that foster sinful and broken human nature (5:20); and

WHEREAS, the Standing Committee on Renewal and Structural Reform knows that no solution will be perfect nor will it meet everyone's needs, we also sense that it is a kairos moment to define a new way of addressing moral, ethical and/or justice issues at our General Assembly; and

WHEREAS, the Call for Action addresses the process for submission of issues; provides for the selection and adoption of up to four Calls to be submitted to the General Assembly by the General Board; suggests ways in which the General Assembly would engage more fully with the four issues over three days; and provides for a vote on whether each call for action would be sent from the General Assembly to the whole church for appropriate consideration and action; and

WHEREAS, paragraph 45 of The Design provides for the introduction of emergency items of business at a General Assembly;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the standing rules for the General Assembly regarding Items for Reflection and Action, Study Documents and Sense of the Assembly Resolutions be replaced with the following "Call for Action"; and
 
FINALLY, BE IT RESOLVED that this be considered provisional for the General Assembly meetings in 2011 and 2013, with evaluation by the General Board in 2012 and 2014 so that a decision on adoption or further adaptation can be presented to the General Assembly in 2015.

The General Board of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

The General Board recommends that the General Assembly
ADOPT Business Item No. 0925. (Debate time: 24 minutes)

Read the Frequently Asked Questions on this resolution.

Please read "Section 2.3: Calls for Action" of the Special Rules of Procedure for the General Assembly for additional information. (PDF)

Discussion on this Resolution

This discussion board is closed to new comment submissions.

Comments from the Community

21 total comments.

From: Sam Fox - Friday, July 31, 2009
I am always and forever disenchanted with the clamor for power among us. Young David stood before King Saul and in a matter of fact way spoke and acted out the firm conviction that God didn't need humans to acquire power. God has plenty of power. The force of our witness is not measured in how many people we represent. That evaluation only encourages manipulation and power-mongering. "Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus, , ," points to an emptying of power. Rather the demonstration of a better lifestyle which includes giving of respect to others is the most powerful thing we can do. Do we think we need to legislate the mind of God? I think if we are going to be Disciples or disciples of Christ (and there should be no difference) we need to emulate Him, not the synodical or congressional examples of secular government. In the church the government rests on Messiah's shoulders. You want to be great, Jesus asked--serve. Let's have more workshops on how to do that better.
From: Dan Bryant - Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wish I could be present for this debate! I grew up on Sense of the Assembly resolutions and miss those days of vigorous debate, not just on the Assembly floor, but in workshops and the halls of the Assembly. That said, I also understand the logic of moving to the discernment model. What I like about this proposal is the idea of going deep on a few issues. If those issues are chosen well, we might actually produce something significant that will engage us in the kind prophetic action Steve Fietz mentions in his post. (Hi Steve!) Limiting it to 4 issues gives significant power to the General Board, which may or may not be a good thing, depending on how they use that power. The part that gives me most pause is the 2/3 requirement. Recall that Michael Kinnamon received 65% of the vote in Tulsa and hence lost that election because of that requirement. (One might say that his role now at the National Council of Churches is evidence of God turning an unfortunate incident into something very positive! That raises the interesting question of whether his opponents were doing the work of God or working against God's intent!) Reaching the 2/3 mandate on the one hand will make any approved Call to Action stronger. On the other, it certainly will restrict the ability of the General Assembly to speak in prophetic ways to the church and to the world. Only time will tell if this is a good move. If you have any experience with Quakers, you now how difficult it can be to achieve consensus at times. But when they do, their witness is often very powerful. Moving in that direction may not be a bad thing for us. If we figure out how to do this and do it well, perhaps we can expand the number of issues we then take on.
From: Craig Watts - Saturday, July 25, 2009
I, too, think the General Church "should spend time encouraging, resourcing & equipping struggling congregations" and more. Resolutions on public issue is one small but important way of accomplishing this important task. Workshops, study materials, focused service, ect., also contribute in crucial ways. Sadly, some local congregations are not challenged to look at peace and justice issues except as they face them at General Assembly. Ministers, especially younger ones, are often under great pressure to keep silent. The resolutions at the Assembly provide one of the few sources of empowerment and encouragement for them to call their congregations to follow Jesus in ways of nonviolence, in care for the marginalized and inclusion for the rejected in a world of war, division and hostility. These are not "pet projects" but expressions of discipleship. The Call to Action has some good points but I am wary that it will end up sidelining peace and justice concerns. Resolutions need to be preserved.
From: Mark Bushor - Friday, July 17, 2009
I think the national entity (as well as the region and area) should spend their time encouraging, resourcing & equipping struggling congregations, and allow local churches to address controversial subjects according to their own conscience (as led by the Spirit). Because speaking on behalf of a diverse denomination is risky business at best.
From: David L. Holland - Friday, July 17, 2009
The Assembly should refrain from making resolutions that can be construed as having a political skew. Stick to spreading God's Word and leave the man-made dogma to others. The DoC is made up of those with both liberal and conservative agendas --both of which offend the other. Keep the focus, and get away from "pet" projects which sound great to one side and offends the other. If you're wondering why membership is shrinking, consider previous resolutions (July, 07) as being part of the cause.
From: Martha Curtis - Friday, July 17, 2009
I totally agree with Rev. Trullinger and everything he has stated in his comments. Indeed taking a majority vote (which many times is very marginal) on highly divisive issues is an unhealthy practice for the life and cohesiveness of the total body of our denomination and contrary to the intentions of both Stone and Campbell. I would like to submit the most recent model of the Southwest Regional Assembly. There were great speakers, wonderful workshops, a lot of networking of Christians from all over the region, and lively discussion and debate on important issues facing Christians today. However, the only resolutions brought to the table for a vote dealt with the important business of the church in the Southwest Region dealing with finances and officers. Because of this "new way" of experiencing assembly, I came away with a sense of connectedness with my brothers & sisters from all over the SW Region regardless of their diversity, refreshed and renewed ready to serve my Lord in a new and exciting way.
From: Rev. Jared Trullinger - Tuesday, July 14, 2009
I'd like to see Sense-of-the-Assembly resolutions disappear altogether. They do little for Christian unity and only fuel Disciples Heritage Fellowship and similar movements. I tend to agree with the beliefs espoused in most S-o-t-A resolutions, but that is not the point at all. S-o-t-A resolutions ask people to take all-or-nothing stances on very complicated issues and appear to those outside our denomination - who often have zero understanding of our polity - as our official positions. Debate on the floor of the Assembly, in Disciples World, and in discussion groups is both healthy and historical; excluding some by taking a majority vote on highly divisive issues is unhealthy and, in my understanding, contrary to the intentions of both Stone and Campbell.
From: Greg Lug - Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Less precise terminology; don't see what difference it is supposed to make, but whatever...
From: Steven Fietz - Thursday, July 09, 2009
We made similar changes in N Cal years ago. Asked people do serious research, think about how they could be seriously effective, state how they would follow up on their resolutions, ponder how they could do more than win a relatively easy debate with a conservative minority at a denom gathering. Last I heard, it was pretty much the last nail in resolutions coffin. Too many of us liberals (yes, I'm one) just aren't up to the real work of real change. We just want to make and win an argument in one of the few places in the church where we are the majority. Certainly many of the resolution writers are serious, dedicated people. But let us stop deluding ourselves that most Regional or General resolutions, as they are usually presented, constitute any kind of truly effective, prophetic action.
From: Barbara Jones - Thursday, July 09, 2009
Rev. Linford shared concerns on July 5 about the limitation placed on an issue being brought back to an assembly, and also raised concern about emergency resolutions. First, the text of the rules qualifies the limitation by stating it cannot be brought back unless the content or submitting circumstances have changed substantially. That is an important qualifier. There are also a myriad of ethical, moral and justice issues; I would think that once a Call for Action has been made that call is active from that point on, and additional Calls for action would be more beneficial rather than repeating previous ones, unless there is something new to bring to the church's attention in this way.... The Rules changes regarding A Call for Action make no reference to Emergency Resolutions, so there are no changes being made to what constitutes an emergency resolution. That remains the same. I hope this is helpful. Barbara Jones, chair, SCRSR
From: Ken Brooker Langston - Sunday, July 05, 2009
Bernie McNickle of Edmond, OK, wrote: "First Christian does not object to all Sense Of The Assembly Resolutions, only those that call into question the commitment of those who disagree." With this I can agree. And it would have been a good place to start a good conversation about the resolution process and how to improve it (with many things that are part of 0925 possibly included)--before we started talking about the total replacement of this process. Too bad it didn't work out that way. (A process of discernment might have allowed such conversations to take place prior to a do-or-die, win-or-lose vote on a resolution like 0925).
From: Bernie McNickle - Sunday, July 05, 2009
I am a lay member of the First Christian Church of Edmond, Oklahoma. First Christian is diverse congregation with a membership of over 1200. I have served this Church in all major offices from Moderator of the Congregation, Moderator of the Church Board, Elder, Trustee, Moderator of the Church Budget Committee, and several other Task Forces of the Church.. Yes, First Christian Church of Edmond is the Church referred to by Rev Charles Bayer. My Wife & I have attended the past several General Assemblies and have noticed that each General Assembly has Sense Of The Assembly Resolutions where important issues are decided by a very close majority and it is quite clear there is a loss of harmony in the Assembly. First Christian of Edmond has held special open meetings where all members of the Congregation have been invited to express their opinions of the 2007 Resolution 0728, the Iraq War Resolution. I am aware of only one person who spoke in favor of this Resolution. First Christian does not object to all Sense Of The Assembly Resolutions, only those that call in to question the Committment of those who disagree. The Christian Church, Disciples of Christ are supposed to use the Design Of The Christian Church Disciples Of Christ. as its guide. Please read "Special Rules Of Procedure For The General Assembly", I call your attention to #5 of the rules "Sense-of the-Assembly Resolutions". The last sentence paragraph "A" reads"The Text of a proposed resolution should be so phrased as to not bring to question the Christian commitment of those who disagree". I was at the 2007 Assembly in Fort Worth and the "strained silence" that followed the final vote on Resolution 0728 spoke volumes. If the Christian Church is to grow, we must accept diversity of other Church Members. I am 82 years old and know that I can not tell other what they should believe. It is by becoming involved that we grow to understand the opinions and positions of others. My wife, Joyce and I served on a
From: Rev. Kirsten Linford - Sunday, July 05, 2009
Sorry. That's clearly my error in the first line. I meant issues of conscience.
From: Ken Brooker Langston - Sunday, July 05, 2009
A PLEA to supporters of Resolution 0925: Please take seriously the concerns and questions put forward both by those who strongly oppose this resolution and those who, although open to some parts of it, also have concerns and questions about other parts of it. Please receive them as invitations to conversation and clarification--and perhaps even recommendations for potential amendment in this new and provisional approach. PLEA to opponents of Resolution 0925: Please put as much energy into thinking creatively about how we might constructively, positively, and in a way that contributes to the life of the church, live into this new and provisional way of doing things, working side-by-side with our well-meaning and equally committed sisters and brothers in Christ. After all, this resolution just might pass.
From: Rev. Kirsten Linford - Sunday, July 05, 2009
I do understand the need to re-think the way we handle resolutions on issues of conscious. Our current structure makes it nearly impossible to have a substantive conversation on issues of justice, without getting derailed by parliamentary and process issues. I also appreciate that these issues can become even more divisive when taken up in only a formal context, in which it is difficult to have actual conversation. That being said, I'm not convinced that this new format is going to be enough. I understand that it may be helpful to focus our sense of assembly conversations to a few important issues. But I am very concerned that once discussed, we'll be unable to return to an issue for six whole years. Just as distressing is the lack of accommodation for emergency resolutions. The world does not always function according to our time schedule. We must have a way to address those issues that are MOST present in our world - and most timely. I pray that, as a church, we will not turn away from our call to justice, but continue to co-create a church that stands for all and takes its place in God's work of justice and peace.
From: Ken Brooker Langston - Friday, July 03, 2009
Just for the record: Overall, I find Charles' questions and concerns good ones (though in need of factual amendment here and there) and hope that those who support Resolution 0925 will view them as an invitation to conversation and clarification. I especially welcome clarification. I also find the FAQs very helpful and, in fact, more encouraging than the language of the resolution itself. But I am still left with questions and concerns, primarily: when does the church, as a whole church (general, regional, and congregational), speak to the world about an important justice issue? And where else could this "wholeness" take place than at General Assembly?
From: Ken Brooker Langston - Friday, July 03, 2009
It seems to me that the third, fifth, and six "Whereas" apply as much to this resolution as to any in the past. And the fourth "Whereas" seems to call as much for greater education about the current process as for any change in it. But instead, now we'll talk at each other a little while about this resolution and then vote on this divisive issue, leaving winners and losers--the very thing we supposedly no longer wish to do. Perhaps we should have experimented with this a little before it came to the point of submitting a resolution--perhaps issuing a call on the matter, encouraging and allowing time for greater discussion and discernment. We do believe in discernment, don't we?
From: Ken Brooker Langston - Friday, July 03, 2009
Again, I see pros and cons to both positions. But in her response to Charles Bayer, Barb Jones says, "the cutting edge for dealing with ethical, moral and justice issues has shifted over the last 40 years. What was done then was appropriate for that day and time." So that I can better understand her response to Charles,I would like for her to unpack this a little and to be very specific about it in terms of what was appropriate about this approach 40 years ago that is no longer appropriate,and exactly when and how the change occurred.
From: Ken Brooker Langston - Friday, July 03, 2009
I see pros and cons to both positions and therefore never understood why it had to be an either/or--i.e., why the resolution process could not continue to exist and, in addition, the Assembly be able to prioritize 3 or 4 issues and then carry these forward as the "Call to Action" suggests. Also, I do not see why the resolution re Calls needs to be so polemical about the current resolution process. Completely apart from the substantive merits of resolution 0925, I have strong reservations about this kind of language being adopted. As I read it, it tends strongly and unnecessarily to denigrate a process that is important to many people and congregations, and therefore disrespects their hard work over the years.
From: Barbara Jones - Thursday, July 02, 2009
Charles Bayer stated in his comment July 1 "Having lost our cutting edge, we are now faced with a sturdy effort to mute our voice even further". As a member of a congregation, a parent of young adults, a regional minister, and the current and final chair of the Standing Committee on Renewal and Structural Reform, I would say that the cutting edge for dealing with ethical, moral and justice issues has shifted over the last 40 years. What was done then was appropriate for that day and time. The Call for Action focuses on what is needed for this day and time. It invites all expressions of the church to name the ethical, moral and justice issues that affect us, and encourages us to engage them as God leads us to do so. The social gospel is just that -- we, together, find the courage to name what is happening in our social context and encourage each other to live and breathe and spread the good news of Gods transforming love, grace and power that overcomes human brokenness where we live. I was raised by the church Charles describes, and called to serve as Christ's minister of the Gospel during that time. I whole-heartedly support this move to trust God to lead us in naming together what parts of sinful human nature affect us, and claim together our call to action to allow God's spirit to work in and through us to bring healing to that brokenness. (Gal. 5).
From: Charles Bayer - Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Like many other Disciples, my outlook on the relationship between the Christian gospel and the world has been formed by our church. As a green, uninformed, naïve, young minister I was opened up by my participation in denominational life, both in my contacts with our Department of Church and Society and in our General Assemblies. It was in the clearly articulated stance of the church on civil rights, violence, economic justice and a score of other issues that I discovered the critical relevance of what I had learned in Sunday School and summer youth conferences. I knew where the church stood because it said so. And then things began to change. The Department of Church and Society was abandoned. Increasingly new hesitant voices muted our social commitments. It came to a head a decade ago when instead of taking a stand on the full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons we decided to deep-six the subject by appointing a commission to discern the matter. Nothing has been said since that side step was made. We simply discerned it out of existence. While we could still muster a majority against war, for instance, increasingly angry voices began to warn us that to take a stand on such serious matters was divisive. The 2007 General Assembly did affirm our church’s opposition to our current wars. Subsequently, however, a substantial Oklahoma congregation not only objected to the position taken by the General Assembly, but also to all Assembly resolutions on critical social issues. Having lost our cutting edge, we are now were faced with a sturdy effort to mute our voice even further. In Indianapolis we will be presented with a move by our General Board and our GMP, which will dramatically change the way we relate church and world. The proposal essentially does away with our ability to take positions on the critical issues. Had these rules been in force during our earlier days we would not have committed ourselves to civil rights, the end of Jim Crow laws, world pea
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)