Rule 44 is SUCH a hugely complex and insanely cumbersome proposal for General Conference. Or is it? Clarity and Commentary on a (willfully) misunderstood process.
44 Problems?
All the rage in the Methodist blogs this past month has been to discredit Rule 44, one of the proposals coming to General Conference in May.
In reading the essay, it struck me that one of the more subtle ways to kill a proposal is to make it more complex than it actually is. Given most of the bloggers writing on Rule 44 spend paragraph after paragraph “breaking down” this “cumbersome” process and pointing out “44 points of complexity,” this seems to be the strategy of those opposed to the proposal.
So, instead of focusing on the contorted points made by others, lets focus on what the proposal actually is, and how it isn’t that nefarious of a process.
===
Part 1
Rule 44, Explained
The reality is that Rule 44’s proper name (which is not “Rule 44,” a moniker that is also effective to make it tedious) spells out exactly what it is: an Alternative Process for Group Discernment.
- Alternative: This is a different process to the usual way of doing General Conference discernment through Robert’s Rules. If passed, it will be used for a tiny minority of petitions (likely less than 200 out of 1400). The rest of the petitions would be handled normally by Robert’s Rules processing.
- Process: Just as the 1400 items of legislation are sent to about 12 committees for Robert’s Rules processing (which are discerned initially by only 1/12th of the full 864 delegates), these 200 would be sent to the alternative process for discernment–but by the entire group of 864 delegates–likely in 4-6 sessions.
- Group: Delegates will sit in small group tables of 15 delegates, which include a facilitator and a scribe (both delegates) and a trained monitor (not a delegate, with no voice or vote). They discuss the petition around the circle and send their table votes–along with any amendments offered–to a small group of elected delegates which compiles all the feedback through quantitative and qualitative analysis into a single petition or set of petitions.
- Discernment: The group and Facilitation group are not final votes. Just as Legislative Committees discern and recommend votes to General Conference floor, this alternative process would do the same and result in petitions to be amended and voted up or down by the General Conference Floor, just like they always are.
Rule 44, Graphed
To see it in action compared to the Robert’s Rules method (which we would still use for 90% of the petitions), here’s a handy graphic. Reading from bottom to top, the circles are groups of delegates, the white arrows are what are sent from one group to the next, and the descriptors are what happens there:
For more details, here’s the actual petition. As you can see, the Alternative Process is far more participatory, reports more data than simply majority votes, and still ends up as petitions for consideration on the Floor of General Conference. It’s really not complex, but those who oppose it certainly benefit from making it so. Don’t be fooled.
Rule 44, The Sticking Points
The three points that are most often mentioned in critiques are the Facilitation Group, the Monitors, and Transparency.
- The Facilitation Group is only 6 people elected from a pool of 18. While this seems small, we entrust the University Senate and the Judicial Council to small expert groups, so there’s no reason to distrust that this small expert group could be as professional and fair as other bodies.
- The Monitors are there because, even though we are all adults and mature, hateful language was said in 2012, and in 2008 homosexuality was compared to bestiality on the floor of General Conference. If we called them Reporters instead of Monitors, they wouldn’t be seen as challenging to our egos.
- Transparency is needed to be made explicit, both quantitatively (how many small group members voted FOR the petition) and qualitatively (how did Facilitators come up with that amended language?). There’s nothing in the actual rules that make it secret, and indeed at the Pre-GC briefing, the numbers were reported. So I’m unsure where this belief that everything will be secret is coming from…at least authentically. Regardless, it would be nice for transparency to be more explicit.
Clearing up the rhetoric and the fear around this simple structure will do a lot for our honest engagement of it.
===
Part 2
Commentary: In My Name…Conquer
The vitriol and rhetoric surrounding Rule 44 seem to indicate that the process strikes to the heart of the majority culture in The United Methodist Church. And I think it’s easy enough to see what it is.
Sue Monk Kidd, writes in her book The Dance of the Dissident Daughter:
“The core symbols we use for God represent what we take to be the highest good….These symbols or images shape our worldview, our ethical system, and our social practice–how we relate to one another. For instance, [Elizabeth A.] Johnson suggests that if a religion speaks about God as warrior, using militaristic language such as how “he crushes his enemies” and summoning people to become soldiers in God’s army, then the people tend to become militaristic and aggressive.”
Since Constantine, our image of God has always been Triumphant, wrapped up in conquest, and that is reflected in our social policies and practices. From Manifest Destiny, to the Doctrine of Discovery, to the Salem Witch Trials, to the Moral Majority of the 1990s-2000s, conquering physical and political terrain has been part of who we believe the Church to be.
And I believe this conquest mentality is part and parcel of The UMC.
The majority culture has conquered Robert’s Rules and made it work to prop up conservative/traditional beliefs. To move away from a conquered process into a new Rule 44 one is extremely uncomfortable and unsettling.
Conquering Institutions, not Lands
Most of the writers against Rule 44 come from the majority culture that has mastered and benefitted from Robert’s Rules. Its serpentine rules allow those who have mastered it to silence voices (mostly non-native English speakers) and defeat new ideas without actually talking about them face-to-face.
The majority conservative/traditional culture benefits the most from keeping things the way they are, and each of the writers has authored/supported legislation to make The UMC even more hostile to progressive brothers and sisters:
- Dr. Christopher Ritter posted four blogs on the subject (1,2,3,4) that began in cautious engagement and ended in full-out opposition. Ritter has based his own jurisdictional proposal for progressives on the racist Central Jurisdiction that placed African-Americans in a separate-but-equal jurisdiction.
- Dr. Rob Renfroe, President of Good News, posted a video opposing Rule 44. Good News has a whole page of their legislation sent in to General Conference, each one more anti-progressive than the last.
- Mr. Joel Watts, layperson and Doctoral Candidate, wrote two blogs (1,2).
- Dr. David Watson, Dean at United Theological Seminary, wrote a long article on Rule 44 for UM Reporter. Watson is the originator of the anti-progressive A&W Plan and the CUP Plan.
There are two voices that offer engagement beyond the majority culture warriors:
- Dr. Kevin Watson, Professor at Candler Theological Seminary, wrote two articles (1,2) on why Rule 44 is not Christian Conferencing. That is valid, although neither are Robert’s Rules. So we aren’t replacing a Wesleyan practice with a non-Wesleyan one–we are discerning how best as a Church to made decisions and have conversations. If–as Watson proposes–we start with Holy Conferencing at the local and district level and let it trickle up, that’s great consideration for 2020 and beyond.
- Dr. Dorothee Benz, both here on my blog previously and here on Reconciling Ministries, has written on her concerns about Rule 44 from the perspective of the LGBTQ community.
Rule 44, The Hope
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
– Albert Einstein (alleged)
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Mark 2:27
Our processes for General Conference are not sacrosanct but are voted on every year to determine the rules by which we will communicate by. The past General Conferences have led to the same divided church. Do we want to keep living by the same process and ending up with the same result? For those who benefit from a divided and weak Church, they do.
But I don’t, and I don’t think you do either. My hope is that instead of voting down Rule 44, that we perfect it and answer the lingering questions. And then practice it in its limited, specific form. I don’t have high hopes of big turnabouts, but perhaps in the process we’ll be able to see one another as brothers and sisters in Christ again, and maybe the Spirit will shine in an undiscovered land that has yet to be conquered by the powers and principalities.
Thoughts?
Thank you for the post. I have to admit I’ve not been able to follow Rule 44 in the UMC news. I appreciate the comparison to Roberts Rules. I understand why Roberts Rules is necessary but I hate that it dictates the church both locally, regionally and globally. It isn’t Christian Conferencing and it is something not universally used. May we allow voices at all tables to be heard.
When we practiced Rule 44 at the Pre GC Briefing I found it helpful for dialogue. The process seemed to work. Nice to have an option. I have no fear about it’s use.
Thanks for trying to explain this alternative for all.
A small factual era in your text to sadly note. Homosexuality was also compared to bestiality in 2012 as well though the interpreter sought to soften what was being said as they recognized the harm that could be done.
For more on that: http://www.pnwumc.org/news/a-question-of-translation/
Thank you, Patrick, for holding the memory that is being discarded! And for reminding us.
Re: Rule 44. Got it. Rule 44 is an attempt to massage GC to produce a result contrary to the will of the majority as repeatedly expressed in past GS’s. Got it.
Rule 44, as I see it, is the Commission on the GC’s attempt to move us out of both our comfort zones, our heads, and out of our own way; allowing at least a small glimmer of the Spirit to work in the midst.
Hope. Nope. The rule reflects a political calculation that seeks to blunt the will of the majority in favor of the minority.
Because all that matters is the will of the majority– not the potential movement of the Holy Spirit through silenced, minoritized and oppressed persons?
What matter is what is right according to Scripture. The witness of Scripture is to marriage being one man and one woman. Scripture does not at any point anywhere affirm same sex relationships or same sex marriage. When Jesus spoke to the issue of marriage, he affirmed the standard of one man and one woman. Strained partisan readings of Scripture interpreted to affirm same sex marriage are not credible. Rule 44 is a political calculation designed to permit those who support such spurious reinterpretation of Scripture to have the power to force their will on the majority. They are are not a minoritized group. They simply do not reflect the will of the majority in the churches. They are not oppressed. They simply are not permitted to make their own partisan view of marriage as normative in the denomination.
Can you give clarity on how the “group of 6” will be selected and how the “group of 18” was selected? I agree that the University Senate and Judicial Council are small expert groups and that there is a model for this, but those groups are also elected by the General Conference. Will that happen with this model, too?
I love the idea of real, true holy conferencing. The idea that everyone comes to the table open to the possibility that their minds and hearts might be changed. I love that. Here is my concern about Rule 44: I believe it has the potential to do real harm to people who come to the table with open hearts. I can’t imagine how this will be any different than the discussions that happened in 2012. Monitors are not police. Once harmful words are said, they cannot be retracted. It would be great to start a series of discussions that might last over a quadrennium and result in legislation for 2020. That feels more realistic to me. Maybe start a study that anyone who wants to be a delegate in 2020 should take. I doubt that would fly, but I agree that we have to do something different. However, it’s a lot to think minds that have not changed in 40 years will change in 3 hours. Saying that, I truly believe the Holy One can do anything if we open ourselves to the Divine (Luke 1:37), but it does concern me.
Are there Guidelines for Holy Conferencing that will be agreed to first? Things like speaking respectfully from the I-position, not “those people” or “you” … and listening reflectively and compassionately, addressing the other based on that one’s values rather than one’s own…?
We have found these to be most helpful in our conference Unity Dialogues.
Thank you for streamlining this information and giving us some handles. Bless you, Jeremy!
Laurie, pages 22 through 41 of the Advance Daily Christian Advocate contain guidelines on Christian conferencing, how to be an interculturally competent delegate and how to discuss human sexuality. John Wesley’s 3 rules also are in this section. A draft of guidelines for the specific alternative process were used at the Pre-General Conference Briefing in January and are being revised for General Conference based on feedback from the participants in the practice exercise.
It should be noted on page 28 that all people do in fact have a race. That race is human. We are all human, and there are no such thing as separate human races. This is a long debunked scientific theory that has been used to divide and slaughter those thought to be of inferior races. It isn’t helpful to continue to use such an untrue term.
This is how I understand it.
The problem with this process is that it is easily manipulated. It will only work if there is some measure of trust between the participants and the leadership. As we have seen within The UMC there is a serious trust shortfall. Ordinarily a large conference of people might divide into groups and elect a leader for each group. In this case the leaders have already been nominated by each annual conference. The GC Executive Committee will select the leaders from the list of nominees. I am unclear about how the groups will be determined but if each group is seeded with progressives then each group will have at least one person holding to the progressive view making the widespread minority reports indicating wider acceptance than what a vote might reflect.
After the group discussions the recommendations will be forwarded to the Facilitation Group of 24 hand-picked people chosen by the Bishops’ Leadership Discernment Committee. There will be one man and one woman from each jurisdiction so the Facilitation Group will not in any way be proportional to membership and since they are appointed not elected they are not responsive to the group consensus. From this Group of 24 six will be selected by the GC Executive Committee and presented for election by GC. I suppose someone could propose an alternate slate of candidates but that would take some organizational effort ahead of time and is unlikely.
Because the entire conference is divided up into many parts there is no way for the members to see if the motions drafted by the select six accurately reflect the composite view of the conference. I would not trust anything they come up with.
The writer ‘s position became clear when having chosen the word “Progressive ” as opposed to liberal. Let me guess, the writer does not support Scripture as the Word of God, or having authority.
Jeremy,
I appreciate your posts. You have both educated and informed me. I like the idea of Alternative Process for Group Discernment and hope there is a way to move forward in this vein in all discernment at the GC level. I am troubled by the use of Monitors. It breaks my heart that delegates, clergy and laity, to General Conference would intentionally use language that is hurtful. I would argue though, that hurtful words have been uttered by both sides and I question whether monitors can be fair and impartial.