And finally, the last piece of the background: delegates are voted on by members of each Conference to represent them, but are never instructed how to vote. They are governed by their conscience. This makes for some very interesting dialogue and debate: some of which gets very intense. Delegates are not screened for theological presuppositions before they are chosen, and the wide variety of voices and perspectives that are present for any debate on the floor of General Synod is a testimony to how rich and diverse this denomination is.

Now, all of that sets up what was a consistent misunderstanding following last year's Synod meeting at which the UCC - among other things - voted to challenge churches to purchase Free Trade Coffee; to disinvest from companies benefiting from war and terror in the Middle East; and to support the civil rights of all people in the form of Marriage Equality.  (Hint: it was not the Fair Trade resolution that got the most attention).

In the aftermath of Synod, angry members of our churches called to ask me how I voted (I did not even attend Synod). They asked how the rest of the staff voted (Conference Staff have voice but not vote). They asked how I chose the delegates. (I have no power to choose them: a nominating committee formed by members of various churches names a delegate and an alternate). They asked my how I instructed them to vote. (I never had a conversation with any delegate about that: not because I did not have the opportunity - but because I neither had the desire nor the inclination. My understanding of covenant and my integrity prevented me from ever even considering that as a possibility). They asked me why I did not let them (the angry phone caller) talk to the delegates ahead of time so that the delegate could have been sure to represent them - or their church. (That would also be grossly inappropriate, but only further shows an incredible lack of understanding since we had scheduled about a dozen or more meetings for local church members to have conversation with our delegates: not one of the people who called even knew of such meetings - much less decided to attend or send someone from their church.)

Now, all of this is to say that these angry people are starting to form their own faux National Gathering. It will be held in Grove City, Ohio - no, wait, that was cancelled. It well be held at New Knoxville, Ohio - no, wait that was cancelled. It will be held in Bechtelsville, PA in August. Angry at what the UCC did, and the way in which they did it, they are about to demonstrate to us how a really open and inclusive - or faithful and welcoming - gathering functions.

The ground rules can be found on their website. They read in part:

"Registered FWChurches (2 votes each), FWClusters (1 vote each), and FWClergy (1 vote each) will hold the first annual business session of Faithful and Welcoming Churches. Other UCC members present in sympathy with the principles of FWC will be given voice but not vote. Persons not in sympathy with FWC principles may attend as observers and speak if a majority of delegates votes to give voice."

This sounds about right. Angry that one of the most inclusive and democratically run organizations in this country did not vote the way they wanted to, and exhausted after raising their own kind of Cain for over nine months now, they are going to take their own votes.

And they have created their own kind of inclusion: every church that has already voted to be pissed off at the UCC can send a delegate. And every one who swears ahead of time to be sympathetic to their causes can speak. If you are not in sympathy with them, you can watch but not speak. That should make for some lively debate, no?  (Motion on day 2: "If no one is going to use the `Opposing Microphone' I move we just take it down." "Any objections? Seeing none....")

Ironic, yes? The same people who mistakenly accused the UCC of stacking the deck is fighting back by, well, stacking the deck.

Now, in all fairness, I have been asked to present my perspectives of the United Church of Christ at this thrice re-located, once cancelled, and now postponed-by-a-month National Gathering.

And it is not unusual for any organization to hold votes at which only their members can vote. Why, that's true of the UCC at Synod. The difference between the two is that, though they are both `Christian,' both ecclesial bodies, and both Welcoming (one in spirit, one in name) one of the two does not establish its identity and membership ahead of time by saying "You must believe this to join us."

Sort of makes any voting at a National Gathering somewhat superfluous, don't you think?

And sort of makes you wonder why they would have invested so much energy accusing the UCC of doing something that that it never did, only to organize their very first ever gathering in the exact way they thought we did but didn't?

I think Jesus once had something to say about this kind of hypocrisy - but since I have been accused by those who never make such accusations without proof of not believing in the Bible, how would I know anything about that?