A detectable level of tension accompanied Mennonite Church USA delegates into their meeting on Saturday afternoon as they gathered for a final session to discuss a proposed statement about the church’s perspectives on human sexuality.

The resolutions committee drafted the document, titled “A resolution on following Christ and growing together as communities even in conflict,”after receiving differing statements from two groups about the relationship of homosexuals to the church.

After several amendments were carried and one fell short, the resolution was passed by a wide margin of delegate votes and was officially adopted.

The discussion surrounding the document, which was created from two differing submissions to the resolutions committee, included 20 minutes of table talk and then an open mic time. Comments by delegates quickly focused on the two opposing sexuality resolutions that eventually led to the board’s creation of an entirely new document. One delegate wanted to know why the original draft resolutions had not been brought before the delegate body, and why the new document was necessary.

But much of the debate focused on matters of language specificity. A motion for amendment that was proposed and carried was to change the word “affirm” to the word “acknowledge” in the phrase “…we affirm the statements by Mennonite Church USA on Human Sexuality which have been previously passed and are currently in place.”

Two amendments were proposed to change the wording of the “action” at the end of the resolution. One motion carried and one was denied, resulting in this wording of the action: “And so we call upon the Executive Board of Mennonite Church USA to work with conferences to provide and encourage the use of resources which assist conferences and congregations to engage in this discernment…” The phrase “to provide and encourage the use of” replaced the word “highlight” in the original wording of the document. A proposal to add the phrase “in a safe place” after “discernment” was rejected.

As the text of the resolution was discussed, a suggestion to table the resolution for two years, until the next church convention, was not supported. Brent Alderfer, a delegate from Blooming Glen, Pa., said that “postponing the pain for two more years isn’t going to help move things forward.”

Another delegate agreed, saying the issue is not about changing the current teaching positions on sexuality but about addressing an ongoing pattern of conflict. The delegates voted on a motion to postpone the resolution indefinitely, in favor of more table discussion, but that motion failed.

After a period of intense debate covering multiple aspects of the issue, Ed Diller, incoming Mennonite Church USA moderator, began enforcing a 30-second time limit on open mic comments, interrupting speakers when necessary. The full two hours reserved for the meeting ended, and Diller brought the overall resolution to a final vote.

While several delegates still waiting in the line at the mic did not have a chance to speak, motions to extend the discussion time were voted down.

A delegate from Salem, Ore., was less concerned with choosing sides than with church unity and oneness.  “[The point is] not to pick what is right and wrong but how we as a body keep this church united.”