General Conference Reflections: Fear and Distrust

The first night of the 2012 General Conference opened with a grand worship service. There were bright lights, cool graphics, beautiful music, abundant prayer shawls, and a moving sermon. One of the most moving moments in the service for me was the sight of all of our episcopal leaders, in full vestment, processing behind the cross down the center aisle to the front stage, where the hundreds of active and retired bishops were seated for the service and most of General Conference. It was a beautiful sight to see our clergy leaders, our spiritual shepherds, all gathered and seated in front of us. As I scanned the crowd of faces I saw many bishops who I knew or recognized, bishops which I held the utmost respect for and admiration of, bishops that I hoped and believed would lead our beloved United Methodist Church into the future with vision and purpose, bearing healthy and vibrant fruit.

That feeling of reverence, awe, and respect (and dare I add even trust?) for those we have lifted up into episcopal leadership only seemed to dissipate as the conference progressed. What quickly became clear to me is that we desire our bishops to lead the Church with a strong vision and prophetic voice, yet we fear giving them the power which would actually allow them to do so. This became most evident in the debate (no, not discussion, but debate) regarding the non-residential bishop and term limits for bishops. First, the Council of Bishops (CoB) submitted a petition which would allow for a non-residential president of the CoB. What began as an informed presentation by Bishop Goodpastor quickly digressed into an anti-Roman Catholic mud slinging contest on the floor. Charges of totalitarian Popery were casually thrown around, loaded with emotional and non-rational sentiments. What amazed me the most was not the uneducated remarks that were made publicly on the floor (such as those who didn't even know enough polity to realize we have a current president of the CoB), or the emotional anti-Catholicism which won out over reasoned arguments, but the overarching culture of fear and distrust which surrounded the entire mess. Needless to say, this petition did not pass.

Then, after the removal of guaranteed appointments had been passed on the consent calendar (to the suprise of many delegates), a piece was brought to the floor regarding the assignment of term limits for bishops. This piece called for bishops to be given an eight year term limit, with the option for one re-election at Jurisdictional Conference. The fear and distrust experienced in the non-residential bishop debate quickly reared its ugly head again. The debate was again filled with much emotional baggage and not enough rationale discernment.

I must say that I am all for holding our bishops accountable, and if we can end guaranteed appointments for clergy, then surely some form of this rule should apply to bishops as well. However, this particular piece of legislation which assigned term limits was not properly thought out, developed, and seemed more like an act of retaliation than a well though out system of accountability. I agree, if a bishop can't get their act together after eight years of service, then they shouldn't be serving in that capacity any longer. However, there was no thought given to what happens to current retired and active bishops, central conference bishops, or how Jurisdictional Conference would handle the sudden increase from electing two or three bishops each quadrennia to electing up to fourteen bishops each time in some jurisdictions. It seemed much more like an act of fear than one of rationale discernment.

Looking back, I am extremely surprised and disappointed at the broken relationship which exists between our bishops and the rest of the Church. As we are currently going through the process of nominating, interviewing, and in a few short months voting on new episcopal leaders, it amazes me that we do not trust the leadership we ourselves put into place. How do we expect to move forward as a Church if we won't even let the leaders we have put into place guide us?

Now I realize that there are bishops who are incompetent, ineffective, and/or just plain bad at their job, just like there are district superintendents who are incompetent, ineffective, and/or bad at their job, and pastors who are incompetent, ineffective, and/or bad at their job. If one has a bad bishop, DS, or pastor, then one year is way too long to live/work under them (not to mention much damage can occur) - But if one has a really good bishop, DS, or pastor, then ten years isn't even long enough!

So how do we begin to live into a system which holds all of us accountable? How do we have constructive conversations with a bishop when he/she is hurting instead of helping their flock? How do we work through problems that clergy and laity face so that we heal relationships instead of throw mud? How do we protect prophetic voices when they face angry criticism?

I believe it starts with living into a system where transparency and accountability are key. Secret messages are not delivered, back room rants do not occur, closed door bullying sessions are not tolerated. When problems occur, we address them openely instead of attempting to sweep them under the rug or totally ignoring them. When I make an off-handed remark that demeans those I'm angry or frustrated with, you call me out. We begin to forget the "other," that is so easily critiqued, and begin to address the individual, who is an imperfect human being. Offer advice. Take advice. Trust me. Trust others. Trust yourself.

Perhaps if we began viewing the relationship between bishops, district superintendents, pastors, and laity with less regard for our own well being and more for that of the "other," we might even begin to recognize the humanity on the other side of the mirror. Perhaps we might begin to love our bad pastor, incompetent district superintendent, and ineffective bishop so much that they can't help but listen, grow, and love with us. Perhaps we might realize that our neighbor looks a lot like this leadership figure we are completely fed up with. Perhaps we might begin to live fully once we have truly been able to love wastefully. Perhaps we might even find our way out of the wilderness of fear and distrust and maybe, just maybe, get a glimpse of the promised land which lies ahead.

This is not a call for blind trust or ignorant love. It is a call for loving accountability. Love me so much that you have no other choice but to hold me accountable - and let others do the same for you.

.

"Let the Jesus in me, love the Jesus in you. It's easy, so easy, easy to love!"

General Conference Reflections: A Better Way

After seven months of intense preparation, I first landed in Tampa filled with excitement and energy. As I registered at the convention center and walked through the halls on the first afternoon I realized that I was among the best of the best when it came to United Methodist leadership. I felt this communal sense of a deep desire for change from our status quo, a desire to truly holy conference, a desire to listen and learn instead of debate and legislate. I went to bed that first night eager, excited, and hopeful that by the time I boarded the plane back to Dallas in two weeks, The United Methodist Church would be changed for the better.

It was during the debate over our Rules of Organization on Tuesday night when I began to realize that I might be wrong. After hours of debate on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, we were already off to a delayed start. Committee work then began late Wednesday morning and it quickly became clear that most committees were fairing no better than the precedent set by the rules debate. Although my Discipleship committee finished early and completed all of our legislation, we really had little to nothing of great weight or importance to deal with. Once my committee finished, my inner methodork kicked in, pushing me to sit-in and observe other committees at work. It was during this time that I had the chance to observe Church and Society II and General Administration. Since many people have written extensively about the disastrous downfall of the General Administration committee to recommend any type of restructuring, I will not examine that here. Instead, I want to highlight a God-moment which filled me with hope for the future of our United Methodist Church.

On Thursday afternoon I sat in on the Church and Society II sub-committee which dealt with the issue of human sexuality. This sub-committee, chaired by my good friend Andrew Ponder-Williams, a 21-year old lay delegate from Missouri, experienced what I considered to be a true moment of holy conferencing. This sub-committee was compromised of around thirty lay and clergy members from across the United States, from across the World, with different races, different ages, and vastly different theological perspectives: 21-75, American-Russian-African, Black-White-Hispanic, Liberal-Moderate-Conservative, Gay-Straight. This truly was a table where all voices were present.

Andrew began this particular afternoon session by holding up a very large stack of papers, giving everyone in the room the chance to see the sixty-one petitions submitted which dealt which paragraph 161.F, where the practice of homosexuality is declared to be, “incompatible with Christian teaching.” However, instead of jumping right into a piece of legislation, with passionate speeches, debate, and parliamentary procedure galore, the sub-committee began simply with a time of moderated discussion. Members were each given two minutes and asked to share their hopes, fears, dreams, concerns, questions, and stories around the issue of human sexuality. People began to share stories of hurt and stories of hope, stories that made everyone laugh and stories that made everyone cry, theological assertions and human realities. By the end of an almost two hour period, walls had truly been broken down and those that entered the room with entrenched positions left the room with not only new eyes and ears, but new brothers and sisters whom they truly loved. Then, after a brief coffee break, the group came back together and set to work on a single petition which struck the language of “incompatible” completely from 161.F. It was truly a beautiful sight to witness.

Unfortunately, the piece did not fare as well the next day in full committee, with nothing being recommended to the General Plenary. However, the process that I had witnessed the day before gave me extreme hope and inspiration. I had my first of many epiphanies that afternoon: What if all of General Conference ran this way? What if, instead of being solely focused on passing or barring pieces of legislation, we began by solely focusing on each other as human beings? What if instead of debating, we began listening? What if instead of giving passionate speeches, we shared personal stories? What if we actually left room for the Holy Spirit to move among us? Would we be overjoyed if the Spirit changed the minds of others? Would we be angry if the Spirit changed our mind? Would we be open to hearing and experiencing the Living Word instead of just reciting the written word?

If there is one thing that this story teaches me it is that there is a better way to do General Conference. Maybe, just maybe, that Way looks a little more like a group of friends in conversations than 988 delegates performing parliamentary tricks…

General Conference Reflections: Why Must I Write?

Although it has now been a full two weeks since General Conference ended, I am still reluctant to attempt putting my thoughts and reflections into a public writing. I’ve had many private conversations to help me process all that went on, but somehow taking the time to write everything down makes all the pain and disappointment I’ve felt that much more real. However, I believe that the collective memory of what happened during those two weeks in Tampa is so important that these memories, emotions, and reactions must be both shared and remembered. So with that being said, here is my attempt at some reflection pieces.