Guiding Question: “If delegates are charged to go to General Conference to confer (Holy Conferencing) with one another about what is best for the life and ministry of the United Methodist Church; how can they be signing statements taking a position before they have been involved in the process of conferring (Holy Conferencing) with others?”
In Heather Hahn’s UMNS report on the Alternative Plan to the Call To Action, I saw this:
General Conference delegations from at least three annual (regional) conferences have endorsed restructuring. Two endorsed the Council of Bishops’s document, “For the Sake of a New World, We See a New Church: A Call to Action,” which outlines suggested changes including the proposed church restructure. A third, the North Texas Conference, has endorsed the Call to Action recommendations.
Wait…what? I had seen these announcements but I hadn’t really put together that they were endorsing specific policy changes ahead of General Conference. While Hahn is careful to say that they have merely endorsed “restructuring” it seems like three large delegations have “officially endorsed” the Call To Action set forth by the Interim Operations Team and other affiliated bodies of the United Methodist Church. Let’s see what they mean:
First, the Iowa delegation did not endorse the CTA specifically…it endorsed the Bishop’s letter for study and discussion.
Our delegation specifically endorsed the document for study and discussion in the wider Church and wishes to challenge all General Conference delegates to thoughtfully and prayerfully consider this document and its implications for our denomination…The Iowa delegation recognizes that there will likely be many changes to The Call to Action proposals from the Council of Bishops but found this document to be very helpful in describing the need for significant changes in structure and alignment of the United Methodist Church.
That is a far cry from “endorsing the Call To Action” as it has been framed by the umcalltoaction.org website. Iowa endorses the letter that outlines the situation, while not endorsing the specific policy changes. They have left that to General Conference where there will be “likely changes” that come from Holy Conferencing. That’s fine, endorse a letter for their annual conference to study and discuss. No problems from this armchair.
But from my friends on other delegations, it seems that Iowa’s action was referenced in other delegation meetings and they were encouraged to endorse the CTA because “look, Iowa is doing it.” And if we look at the reciprocating statements, they’ve gone beyond what Iowa did:
The Rev. Ellen Alston, head of the Louisiana delegation said, “While our members have many ideas about specific actions and structural details, our delegation is in complete accord that the Church needs to refine our focus for mission and effectiveness. We are not currently seeing the results the world needs and our Church aspires to achieve, but we are profoundly encouraged by a new spirit that is emerging with passion for outreach that will make a positive difference.”
Louisiana thus endorsed the Bishop’s Letter “in spirit” but not in “specific actions and structural details.” Again: they have not endorsed the Call To Action’s specific recommendations. But they went beyond “endorsing for study and discussion” and endorsed the document. Still pretty fair. The Bishops have said it. They have authority. No problems, again, from this armchair.
“[T]he delegation is also of one mind that the recommendations for general church structure and governance changes, including the merger of nine of the general agencies led by an Executive General Secretary, are “essential”…
Really? So North Texas not only affirms the Call To Action but has already decided before General Conference that the structure should go through? They are endorsing the specific policy proposals as a group. Even as they endorse it, they admit that changes will be made:
[T]he 30 member delegation from the North Texas Annual Conference voted unanimously to support the basic recommendations of the Connectional Table, knowing that the related legislation will be perfected with some changes made at General Conference.
Zzzzzzzz…For readers up til now, it seems mundane. “So what that elected delegations are voicing their support?” Yeah, pretty boring post so far, right? And if we were Congress that would be fine. We elect people to voice their convictions, right? Snoozer of a post here! Where’s your usual “rants” (to put in the language of a clergy colleague earlier this week)?
==============
Here’s where it gets interesting. A delegate from another conference asked me:
“If delegates are charged to go to General Conference to confer (Holy Conferencing) with one another about what is best for the life and ministry of the United Methodist Church; how can they be signing statements taking a position before they have been involved in the process of conferring (Holy Conferencing) with others?”
We are not electing representatives to Congress. These are not people sent to represent our already-laid-out interests and are there to advocate for us. If we were emulating the outside world, then we should expect our battle lines to be drawn beforehand: there’s a winning side and a losing side, and we hope that our side wins.
But as I’ve written before, that’s not the Church. Because we elect delegates not representatives:
You are not representing our conference. You are a delegate. That means we have delegated our collective authority to you. You vote your conscience as a delegate and pay no heed to “representing” your state. Authority has been delegated to you, take it and vote as a United Methodist who loves [his/her] church.
When we send our delegates, they are sent for two weeks to BE the church, to engage in holy conferencing, to discern what is best for the life and ministry of the United Methodist Church. Holy Conferencing is not mere perfecting the documents, as the above delegations imply. It means that we come with all we are and, by the power of the Holy Spirit, engage with each other and come out after two weeks with a living document that guides millions of Methodists for four years.
As retired Bishop Pennel related back in 2007:
Conferencing is our way of being engaged with spirituality, mission, governance and fraternity. It is a time when we, as United Methodists, come together for worship, prayer, Bible study and the conduct of our business in a grace-filled manner. We believe that truth emerges when we, as a priesthood of believers, come together to listen to one another and to be open to the nudging of the Holy Spirit.
How can we be in Holy Conferencing if our delegations are “unanimous” in their approval of specific policy decisions beforehand? How can we be in Holy Conferencing if we come with our tinted glasses already on, with groupthink giving us additional inertia?
This lonesome pastor out in rural America wonders if delegation endorsements of specific policies is in error and if it is in violation of the call to be in Holy Conferencing and, if I may go further, if it is an obstacle to the Holy Spirit guiding our hearts and minds.
What say you? Discuss.
In case anyone thinks this is my own tinted glasses against the CTA, I would also call out any delegation that endorsed the Alternative Plan that I personally support. This is about standards of conduct, not political posturing.
Great post Jeremy. Shouldn’t the same apply to electing bishops at Jurisdictional Conference?
I appreciate the honesty from these folks, even if I’m saddened that there is clear evidence that for some folks, the work of listening to the Holy Spirit is more or less done.
I’m fairly convinced that most delegates are pretty clear where they believe God has guided them on significant issues before the Church long before General Conference. Given decades of debate and disagreement, I’m not even sure many of us are open to the Holy Spirit suggesting deep convictions might be in error (be it in matters of sexuality, temperance, security of appointment, Sacraments in the local church, or General Church administration).
Maybe I’m cynical, maybe I’m wrong, but my guess is that many of our delegations are much closer to being of “one mind” on many issues, and just have good enough sense not to publish it.
I’m certain most delegates have positions they’ll bring (as has always been the case)–otherwise, GC would look like a Quaker Meeting 😉 That might, actually, be a good idea…
Good post. Generally speaking, I think it is harder for the Holy Spirit to work on a closed & decided mind. A spirit of openness is much more fertile ground for God.
It is a violation of the spirit of the conference to act like elected representatives. Of course, our election of delegates already presumes such made up minds, which is why people have slates of candidates that get supported or endorsed by various interest groups.
We are all too political, but I do not know how to stop it.
So let me suggest a different way of framing this.
In both interfaith and ecumenical dialog, it is essential that dialog partners, going in, be clear about where they and their traditions actually stand. With that kind of clarity, they are then able to speak and work at understanding one another in their actual differences and similarities, and through that process come to possible new agreements about how they might proceed both together and separately.
From this angle, some measure of “pre-GC positioning” at least has the potential to contribute to a deeper conversation when the time comes.
Not all pre-deciding equals final deciding.
I admire your brevity. I responded to Jeremy with a long post only to look up and see that you had said essentially what I was trying to say in far fewer words. 🙂
Good food for thought Jeremy. Thanks. I remember one of the things that I found most stunning when I attended GC the first time was the feeling that there was zero room for the movement of the Holy Spirit in the proceedings. And believe me, it takes a lot of energy on the part of a whole lot of people to keep the Spirit at bay for two whole weeks!
That having been said, I have some thoughts on what you posted about endorsing particular positions (proposals, legislation, etc) prior to coming to General Conference. I haven’t come to any set conclusions on the questions you raise, but do find myself with a perspective that may be somewhat different from the one that comes through your post.
Pointing out that delegates are just that – delegates and not representatives – is very important. It’s a hard distinction for some to grasp but it’s very important. Delegates bring with them their local and regional perspectives but once at General Conference they are also called upon to do that which is best for the entire church, not just that which is best for their own local area.
On the other hand, with literally thousands of pages of reports, proposals and pieces of legislation to plow through in preparation for GC, a thoughtful and prepared delegate will have done a whole lot of thinking, discerning and even hopefully a fair amount of “holy conferencing” with a wide variety of people (either in person or more likely through reading) before arriving at GC.
Once arriving at GC the schedule is relentless with the first week full of legislative sessions – during which time a delegate is secluded for a large part of each day with one legislative committee – not interacting with delegates from the whole church. If they haven’t carefully thought through where they stand on issues before arriving, it’s going to be tough to handle the onslaught once they get there. As I perceive it, one aspect of being a good delegate is being able to clearly articulate the reasons one has reached the conclusion you have about supporting or not supporting a particular proposal or piece of legislation so that other delegates can weigh the pros and cons and you can do likewise hearing from delegates who may have reached a conclusion different that your own.
Having a delegation proclaim its support for something ahead of time might not be the worst thing in the world, especially if they are open to amending, changing or even reversing their position as things unfold at GC. I wonder if at times it might even be the most honest position. If a person, or a delegation, goes into GC supporting one position or another I’d support getting it out on the table for all to see so an honest discussion can be had.
At the same time I hope it’s clear from what I’ve said that I hope and pray everyone arrives with their hearts and minds wide open to being moved and changed by what happens once they are at GC…once they encounter one another…and once they experience being the church together in that time and place. The Spirit is a mighty and wondrous thing, capable of doing great things even at General Conference.
I don’t have a problem with a delegation discussing the issues ahead of time and discerning where they are on issues as a delegation. In fact, I’d encourage it! However, an endorsement goes beyond taking a measurement of where people are on an issue. And for some individuals to use or misrepresent another delegations thoughts and call them an endorsement, so they can try to pressure their own delegation into doing the same… well, that violates much more than the principles of holy conferencing!