Today the Delegate Assembly met only once, during the morning, to leave time for delegates to pursue service projects and take part in the seminars. We used the time to start discussion of the big business issue for the convention: health care access for Mennonite church pastors and staff. In addition to affirming work done on the subject since the Charlotte 2005 convetion, the specific action in question resolves that

• That, as a denomination, we are committed to providing basic health insurance for all eligible pastors, and
• That we request the Executive Board to oversee the development and implementation of a plan whereby all congregations of Mennonite Church USA participate together in an arrangement that covers all of our pastors with basic health insurance

(This is from page 92 of the Delegate Assembly Workbook.) The resolution seems easy to support to me, as it doesn't commit to a specific set of policies (possibilities are discussed in the supporting material), and, more importantly, because it seems to me that, if the church is going to advocate for health care reform at the national level, we should model what we preach. In the presentation of the resolution, the assembly heard from a pastor who was forced to send his wife to Costa Rica, their country of origin, for medical care because he could better afford the plane ticket than the cost of care in the United States. While that story was embarrassing to me as an American, it was more shameful that my own church was unable to help in this situation.

In spite of this, the support for the resolution among the delegates seems mixed. The possible program models discussed will require the entire church to commit to providing health care for pastors. This could happen by developing a plan that every congregation would join without concern for getting the best market-available rate and benefits, to spread risk and cost as broadly as possible. This could also happen by developing a system in which congregations could choose to join the denominational plan or opt out, but would contribute to subsidize memberships for lower-income and smaller congregations. Either way, churches like Landisville, with lots of members and potentially their own ideas about what they want to do for their pastor's health needs, would have to sacrifice to help churches that presently don't have many options.

In open discussion (after discussion at our tables), most delegates expressed support for the broad principle that we should be willing, as a church, to sacrifice in these ways for the greater good. But many also questioned whether the commitment could be made. And that was frankly disheartening. If we, the church, don't have the will to come together for mutual aid, what hope is there for society at large? I pray we can work beyond this as the discussion continues.

Labels: church, health care, San Jose 2007