Star Wars is a sci-fi conflict between the Rebellion and the Empire. In the movies, it is a black/white conflict: The Rebellion is good, the Empire is bad. Even Darth Vader/Anakin who betrays and kills the Emperor is a really bad guy when you get down to it.
So when you read the blog post heading, your temptation might be to say “Sigh…Jeremy is painting the UMC as the evil empire again” or something like that. But I’m not. Given that I’m a star wars fan, I recognize that there’s a lot more going on below the surface of any side of the galactic conflict.
Here’s my assertion: I think the philosophical tension that is explored in the extended universe of Star Wars can inform the current conflict in the post-General Conference 2012 United Methodist Church.
Star Wars
In the extended Star Wars universe of the books and comics, there’s a lot more backstory and philosophy behind the values and actions of the Empire and the Rebellion. In Timothy Zahn’s latest book Choices of One, he succintly outlines one of the major understandings of the Empire: diversity is bad, unity is good. The Imperial Grand Admiral Thrawn (one of the most popular characters in the non-movie universe) compares the egalitarian philosophy of the Rebellion with the more hegemonic philosophy of the Empire:
“Thrawn didn’t think much of the Rebels…his study of the Republic had given him a dim view of any governing body that relied on the consensus of dozens of species, each of which had its own way of thinking about the universe and one another. In Thrawn’s view, a strong unified government was the only way the galaxy would survive…”
– Jorj Car’das, Choices of One, page 124 (hardback)
“[The Rebellions’] chances for long-term stability are nonexistent. Multiple species, with multiple viewpoints and racial philosophies, simply cannot hold power together for long. The dominant voice must certainly be wise enough to adopt ideas and methods from its allies and member peoples. But there must be a dominant voice, or there is only chaos. In this galaxy, that voice is the Empire…”
– Grand Admiral Thrawn, Choices of One, page 349 (hardback)
To Thrawn’s understanding, diversity is fine so long as there is a unity at the top. With so much diversity, they cannot hold power together for a long time one the dominant voices get challenged. With a ever-shifting leadership and consensus-building taking time, a diverse organization–be of worlds or of churches–needs a strong unity in leadership that adapts to its constituents.
Thawn’s understanding is admittedly the most charitable of the Empires. Given that he is an alien (he’s pictured above with blue skin and glowing red eyes) and the only alien to achieve the rank of Grand Admiral, his appreciation of diversity is more expressed. With the other warlords, they are not so charitable. In A New Hope, one of the first words uttered by Grand Moff Tarkin is “The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I’ve just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away…the Regional Governors will now have direct control over their systems.” Thus, the diverse Senate of beings has been subjugated under the dominant voice which is likely more dominant (and human-centric) than Thrawn would have wanted.
In short:
- The Empire believes in Unity over Diversity, in that diversity is fine but a hegemonic unity must guide it to its betterment.
- The Rebellion (the Republic) believes in Unity in Diversity, in that a diverse group of beings must guide the whole galaxy to its betterment.
United Methodism
The United Methodist Church is also enmeshed in this same philosophical conflict. The Call To Action process, the UMC movement that this blog has been covering with no less than 30 blog posts over the past year, did not succeed at General Conference 2012 in one very important area: the total church reorganization known (eventually) as PlanUMC. As I posted the point and counterpoint on this blog, the reasons for its failure lie in constitutional interpretation. And article after article of responses post-GC have blamed this failure on Bishops, intractable leadership, fearmongering, playing-it-safe, the Gays, the South, the framework of the church, and me (yes, I have documented accusations…as if I had that much power…muhahaha). I refused to participate in the post-GC madness in favor of my typical approach: the long game. Perhaps it is better that I’m now on the West Coast as I’ll have two more hours in a day to reflect on world events. Maybe.
But to the point: the persistent claim is found in several forms that a narrow unity is required to guide the diversity in the United Methodist Church. For example:
- Adam Hamilton, in his conversation with young clergy/laity at GC2012, said that he was on the Board of an organization and the Board had like 60 people. “You can’t come to any form of consensus with 60 people” Hamilton said, which is why they have a smaller executive board that makes those decisions. I’m told that Hamilton’s church is structured the same way.
- The Call To Action proposal included a 15-member Executive Board that would be chosen by the outgoing leadership that would guide the UMC. It was dropped from the GC2012 considerations due to its extreme unpopularity with only 15 people representing the diversity of the UMC.
- Billy Abraham, in his article that sees inclusion as a theological error says that a mandated diversity of boards (he calls it a “quota system” or a “mutual admiration society”) is a theological error. He repeats the mantra that competency in the Gospel ought be the criteria, a position that benefits those with the heritage and language of the hegemony, and not those on the margins who benefit most (and benefit our relevance as a church) from mandated diversity.
- Finally, one of the post-GC emails sent around the UMC higher-ups referenced that the Church continues to allow that “Identity politics trumps competency.” In other words, the desire to have more people at the table and asking who is making what kind of motion is seen as more important than who is intelligent/experienced enough to effect change…and that’s a problem, apparently. Or a fallacy. Your call.
- As Gil Caldwell points out last week in the UMReporter, the Central Conferences (non-US regions of the UMC) can adapt their Book of Disciplines to their context and add/remove/altar sections as they see fit (so long as they don’t interfere with ordination standards). In our diversity, we are seen as unified even though our different regions (except the USA…hmm…) can make changes to our supposedly “common” doctrine and polity.
- There is no set standard questions to be asked by each Board of Ordained Ministry. Each develops their own criteria. While blood atonement would do you well in the South, it might be challenged differently in the Northeast. While offering communion to everyone would do you well in the West, it might be challenged differently in the South.
- Repeated conversations over homosexuality and abortion, repeated votes that were 60/40 or even 55/45, challenge the notion that we are of one mind on the topic and yet our discipline does not record which lines are in conflict. Thus, in our very book, we have a unity of diversity where the diversity is whitewashed away and yet year-after-year it is revisited again and will not let go.
- Regionalism has been at play in the UMC ever since before the North/South split. Even with unification, the UMC was divided into regions to ensure a Northern Bishop never came to the South; and indeed a central jurisdiction was created with non-geographic locality to put 99% of the black churches and ministers in. And yet they were called a Methodist Episcopal Church, one that in its unity laid apostolic claim to Christ. Today, the coastal regions (West and Northeast) are considered to be more liberal, and the Southern (Central and East) are considered to be the more conservative. And yet at GC, we all sit around the table together. Unity in Diversity, indeed.
The most common response to this is that “my church has a small board at the top, why is that a problem for the UMC?” While it is true that most churches are structured under a model where a small administrative board runs the church, they are also dealing with a smaller less-diverse culture. Even in a megachurch like Church of the Resurrection, the culture of the church is certainly narrower than the culture of the global Church or even the South Central jurisdiction. So comparing a locality to a global concern is an ecclesiological error, in my opinion, as it misunderstands the role of the church in comparison to the role of the Church (big C).
Unity in Diversity, or Unity over Diversity?
The UMC is constantly deciding whether, philosophically and ecclesiologically, they are more like the Rebellion or more like the Empire. Whether they believe that the entire church can govern representativly from its diversity, or that a narrow unity must govern with strong deference to the diversity of the church. Whether there’s a constant fear of chaos or a constant fear of an intractability out-of-touch hegemony. Whether they become more Catholic in their connectionalism, or more congregational in their connectionalism. It’s a tough decision that truly hits at how we view ourselves as the Church.
The question comes up more and more now that the narrow unity of US dominance is being displaced. Non-US delegates at General Conference came in at 40% this year. By 2020, there’s little reason to believe that the US will not be under 50% of the global church. How then can a narrow unity govern? But more importantly…how can a global diversity govern either?
In Star Wars, the answer became clear: the tendencies of a narrow unity to govern from their hegemony had far more disastrous effects on the galaxy than the “controlled chaos” of the Rebellion (Republic) model. While the pendulum swings further to one side or the other depending on the situation and the decade, the UMC could fare better numerically and in their relevant social witness if they are allowed to have more contextual freedom in our post-modern society and culture. Or they could be more attractive if they have strong identity and fixed doctrines that whitewash nuance in an “anything goes wishy-washy” culture.
I don’t know. But I’m excited to find out as I begin my new appointment in the UMC this coming Sunday in a new church, new city, new state, new region of United Methodism that I know little about. How will we be the Church? And can Sci-Fi inform this discussion in helpful ways?
Thoughts?
- Does the UMC function better with a ‘unity over diversity’ or a ‘unity in diversity’ approach?
- If you choose one, what situations would the other philosophy fare better in?
Discuss. Thanks for reading. Good to be back.
In the answer to is the UMC the (a) Rebellion or (b) the Empire? I answer (c) the Church. 🙂
Can you point to a doctrinal difference in other conferences Books of Discipline? (I understand that the restrictive rules still apply to all which would be central to doctrine, correct?)
May I suggest Diversity in Unity? (instead of the other suggested framing.) That is what we seek to do within our current polity.
Good post. Thanks for taking so much time and energy to understand the other side of this. While I would want to redraw some of the battle lines on this one, overall I identify with the side of the ’empire’ as you have portrayed it. Grand Admiral Thrawn’s points stand, in my eyes.
If we were dealing with a denomination composed of truly different species, or if we were dealing with a faith that entitles us to difference, then I think diversity could be defended against unity. Yet we are dealing with a faith that seeks to unite us all in a common identity, oriented by Christ, right? Christ doesn’t serve a salvific purpose for every person in their differences, because then Christ would have to prefer some more than others, and we would also be compelled to believe that there are some Christ doesn’t want or perhaps who don’t need Christ. Rather, if we are to believe in the universal function of Christ, then we have to believe that Christ appeals to humans in their commonality rather than difference. The ecclesiological venture, then, is not to reinforce differences, but to break them down.
I also find it problematic to argue that differing demographics have different thoughts or opinions. Aside from the clear tendency to racism, sexism, and classism that would facilitate, it also assumes a commonality of experience between persons of these demographics. Yet there is no real ‘black voice’ or ‘women’s voice,’ is there? And when we assign individuals to represent minority voices, we put them in an impossible position, where they can either act entitled to something they have no right to, or they can speak only for themselves. I don’t think representation means better leadership. I think empathy does.
That’s why this talk of meritocratic leadership is so promising, in my opinion. If the assumption is that meritocratic small government will result in white men on top, then…that seems racist. If not racist, then overly pessimistic and suspicious of church corruption. If the argument is that persons in power intrinsically cannot understand or be in faithful communion with those outside of the inner circle, then I think that is equally problematic.
I think we have to reckon with the fact that, historically, the Wesleyan movement flourished most in situations of borderline dictatorial rule. Until we can explain that away, I think we have to take seriously the call to slim down our structures.
Also, I think there is an onus to provide for effective and potent examples of highly representational bodies. We have examples of small meritocracies operating that way, but I’m not familiar with any effective bodies that have large overhead. Hate to bring it to the practical, but I think that’s where the conversation needs to go if the current structure of if something like the MFSA structure is to be promoted over the CTA ideal.
Thanks for the post. I appreciated reading it.
Besides the UMC, there is exactly one global church of any size– The Roman Catholic Church. By your description, it would be more like the Empire in terms of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.
In real terms, the RCC has been a global church for at least six centuries, and a post-colonial global church for about two centuries. Globally, the RCC continues to grow while in Europe it continues to decline.
In real terms, the UMC has been a church, as such, for about 44 years. It has been a global church, at least in terms of there being sufficient “votes” to make a significant difference in the outcome of legislation, for maybe 12 years. Globally the UMC continues to grow, while in the US it continues to decline.
There is no “General Conference” of the RCC. There is no central voting body that determines the budget for the whole. But there is a magisterium that guarantees and continues to work for a strong degree of unity around doctrine, discipline and liturgy. And these strong centripetal forces do, in fact, work to sustain unity in what is also a very, very diverse church across the globe.
The question is what functions as a centripetal force for us, or even what SHOULD function as such. Mr Wesley seemed to think this should remain to be “doctrine, spirit and discipline.” In real terms, he also included liturgy on that list, as he sent to he first General Conference a ritual resource he expected to be used for Lord’s Day worship unfailingly in every US Methodist-society-become-congregation.
To be sure, Mr Wesley came from a “catholic” sensibility about ecclesiology. That does not mean that we, his spiritual progeny, must do so. But we do err if we represent him or early Methodism as valuing diversity as a value in itself. Neither he nor they did.
Historically, it is simply too early to determine whether a project of a global church running on a “Republic OS” is actually stable enough to run while maintaining any kind of coherence. We do know the “Empire OS” as embodied by Rome does have that kind of stability and coherence. And I think we can confidently say that Mr Wesley expected “his Methodists” to be operating on a parallel, if not identical, path.
Sacramentally we’re called to be “one with Christ, one with each other, and one in ministry to all the world.” I guess I would call this unity in diversity because we need to repeat this liturgical act over and over in order to get it through our heads that such radical unity is important.
One of the concerns I have with the more modern progressive movement within the Church is that it seems to value diversity above everything else. Inclusion means nothing if there’s not a challenge to change — a transformation marked by grace changing us more and more into the image of Christ as we love God and neighbor. Now diversity is important because without it we’ll never know true, incarnational love of neighbor. But in a sense, baptism is a death to individuality and a resurrection into the image of Christ — the same and still unique yet different and more like Christ and the baptized community of faith. I don’t devalue diversity at all — I celebrate it. But there’s a theological error in placing it equal to (or greater than) unity in the Body of Christ. As much as I support progressive views, I find this to be a sticking point I can’t get past. Maybe you can help me there.
As far as the UMC goes I hope we value unity. So much of our culture is becoming compartmentalized in the name of diversity. Soon we’ll break down any hope of a US conference because NEJ and WJ can’t exist with SCJ and SEJ folk. The object of being a global church and trying to embody some sense of universal identity is that at some point we have to sacrifice our individual goal, ideals, values, etc. for that which the body sets forth — no matter how dysfunctional and flawed that body may be.
And see Taylor’s comments above for the reasons why Mr. Wesley sought unity over diversity.
I have read the comments above and I am concerned that they continue the view that “progressives” are the threat to the UMC. I especially am concerned that individuals believe that we who are working to make the church more inclusive fail to consider theological unity. I know that I, my husband and many we know are concerned with the theological grounding of our stances. As I look over the last 40 years, what I see is a church that less concerned with unity in the love of God, than with excluding people which seems to me to fail to “love your neighbor as your self.” We should ALL be examining how we treat those with whom we do not agree. I believe that examination calls for more empathy and compassion on both sides, but I feel this line of comments comes down to “love the sinner, not the sin” a stance many take because it allows people to themselves as Christians without true empathy or self-examination. It also states the status quo is just fine. It is not fine. Our church by its stance reinforces the bullying and discrimination in the larger culture. How is that “loving the sinner?”