In the end, I changed my vote. The vote failed, 337 yes, 217 no, 20 abstentions, 12 votes shy of the 2/3 majority needed.
The presentation was done very poorly. There were two slides on the power point--one about what would change, one about what would not. There were no printed materials available (though we were told there were, no one I knew was ever given a printed page about anything we were voting on until, after I was urged by my colleagues sitting with me, went down to the floor and asked for a copy of the board of directors ballot and A. Roy Medley graciously gave me his own copy. Finally they did put the ballot up on the screen for people to see). In years past, all the information has been included in the Biennial guide, including all the rules and procedures for the meeting.
Mary, our president, did announce at the beginning of the opening words on Friday night that delegated needed to sign up ahead of time for time to speak for or against the new bylaws. While some complained that they did not know this, it was announced, and has been part of the procedures since I can remember in attending a Biennial. However, all of these procedures are usually included in the Biennial guide and they were not.
Also, the mailing to all the congregations was of a CD with the proposed changes and Statements of Concern. They mailed one per church. In the past, I know I received all items to be voted on personally in the mail. Everyone on the ABC mailing list still received the registration materials, but not the changes. Also, while a CD certainly is better for those of us that use today's technology, not all the gathered delegates received the CD.
I began to distrust the process based on the lack of information and poor presentation. But in the end, I voted against the process because there were too many responses to questions of "we will tweak that later." It was clear that neither National Ministries nor International Ministries were prepared for the changes. Seeing how it was only a few years ago that there was an attempt to have International Ministries cecede from the denomination, I am weary of giving any board freedom to do whatever they wish, which is what it appeared to be without understanding of what they were going to do with such freedom.
Freedom is key for us as Baptists. But with freedom comes responsibility and accountability, and I could not tell how any of the boards would be accountable to the denomination based on what was presented. The language of covenant needs to be included. American Baptist Churches are autonomous but we covenant with one another in relationship. The continued covenantal relationships need to be assured in the process.
Overall, as the last speak spoke against the proposed changes, I became aware of what my friends who grew up Southern Baptist had experienced. This was not the intention of any of the leaders of ABC, but it could have been the consequence. Ideological and theological factions could easily take over one of the boards if proper accountability is not established. Also, there is no guarantee of diversity in the boards--there is the intention, no doubt--but no guarantee. I could not, in good conscience, vote for such a structure.
I understand the current system does not work and will bankrupt us. I am all for reducing the size of the General Board and still would vote for those names on the ballot for the Board of Directors. But that vote should not have been included with the vote for the proposed changes--you vote for the changes first before voting for the board. And while the proposed board was definitely diverse, there was still no guarantee that in the future we would have such diverse representation.
On the matter of the Public Witness Statements, I am very glad the Metro Chicago signature statement came to the floor. I agree that we still need space at our biennial gatherings to bring our concerns together. I also agree that the past processes have been abused and harmful to minority groups in our gathering. Public Witness Statements would require a 3/4 vote from the other bodies, so if it is initiated by a region, 3/4 of the regions must vote in favor of it in order to pass and become part of our policy. I am weary of a process in which such a statement could come from one of our boards, such as International Ministries, and only need to be approved by 3/4 of the boards. I am less weary of it coming that way from the regions, and to be frank, 3/4 will be tough but it moves towards greater consensus rather than only majority rules. I still believe we should have an opportunity to hear and raise concerns and dissent as well as approval at our Biennial meetings. I know that it means it would take 3/4 of a vote to rescind a previous statement or resolution, but I have less problems with the number as I do with the process.
One of my biggest pet peeves are people who complain about something but don't offer any suggestions or alternatives. My hope is that all of us who changed our vote or who were against it from the beginning will help go back to the drawing board, taking the things that worked well (I have yet to hear why a Mission Table and Mission Summit would be a bad idea, other than there was no guarantee the Mission Table would follow through on any ideas that came from there) and tweaking--no, I really detest that word--relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance, propose alternatives.
Overall, though, I found this Biennial to be the most positive of the ones I have attended from my experience and perspective. For those of us who attended the Young Adult Clergy Network dinner and worship and the Young Adult Clergy Caucus, there is a rising energy to be part of this denomination, not passively, but actively. I urge my colleagues in the Young Adult groups to be part of proposing changes to the new structure.
One of the blessings of my generation is that we seem to be able to handle the disagreements much better. Not all of us are Welcoming and Affirming though a greater number of us do seem to be; however, I found it much more pleasant to be at the table with members of my generation who a) wanted to share their views and b) wanted to hear mine without judgment! It seemed possible to be able to agree to disagree without walking away from the table, but coming to the table! Not only are we not wanting to disfellowship each other, but we need each other. And for those of us who are clergy, we have our own issues that we are concerned about--such as whether or not full-time ministry is a viable option going into the future in the current economic crisis, the challenge of getting churches to understand that compensation needs to increase as the cost of education has astronomically increased and the amount of financial aid has decreased. We also discussed the fact that in previous generations it was acceptable for a church to call someone right out of seminary; now, it seems to be perceived that we don't have enough experience. For those of us who have served as associate ministers, it is still tough to get a primary pastoral position because associate ministry is not valued in the same way. We've got a lot of other issues that are more personal, more challenging to our call by God to ministry, than whether or not we agree or disagree on issues of human sexuality.
We are not the future of the denomination. We are in the denomination NOW and we cannot afford to just wait for our current leaders to make the right decisions--we need to help. We need not only to propose and suggest changes, but it is high time some of us started getting elected to some of these positions of leadership.
To sum it up, I feel very empowered and inspired coming away from this Biennial. I feel there is a new energy coming up and its time for us to get involved and not just rely on someone else to make the decisions for us and complain when we don't agree. Because we're going to be the ones who will have to live with the decisions being made. It's our time.
(edited to add the information about the vote)

