Things are getting busy in the Delegate Assembly as the end of the week looms. Yesterday afternoon we were joined for part of the session by some of the youth, who had been learning about the Assembly and now had a chance to see it in action and give us some feedback. It seemed like a really good way to intentionally bring youth into the decision-making process - I wish I could've done something like that when I went to youth conventions!

The Assembly worked on two major issues since I last blogged:

Anti-racism. We received a report on MCUSA's priority to be an anti-racist organization, and discussed ways that congregations could connect across racial/ethnic lines, and how the Executive Board could support that. Between this discussion and the documentary Fuerza, which I saw last evening, I've come away with a really strong sense that we need to be deliberate about reaching out beyond the historically white European Mennonite circle. I think I may have to make an effort to start learning Spanish, and I want to try and be creative about how I do that.

Health care access.We revisited the discussion of the health care access initiative, and things felt more positive this time. In open discussion, the Assembly asked the Executive Board for a lot of specifics: eligibility, cost, the necessary level of congregational participation across the church. But we also started to talk about ways that we can communicate the need for this action back home, and I think most delegates are going to return from San Jose with as advocates for the project. It also seems likely that the Executive Board is going to put some real effort into developing educational material to help explain the scope of the health care crisis, the importance of action as a church, and the cost of doing nothing.

After a little more talk about health care in this morning's session, we handed in our ballots - I think the resolution is likely to pass, authorizing the Executive Board to begin exploring the options.

Labels: church, health care, San Jose 2007

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