April 30 - Preparing for General Conference

Three weeks before Tampa, I had ordered a copy of the 2010 United Methodist Directory as part of my pre-conference preparation. I figured that since I was hauling it and my Discipline around with my computer and miscellaneous other stuff in the travel case I was pulling everywhere, maybe I better start doing some of that pre-conference preparation I had put off.

I had little patience with the plenary so I spent time that Monday going back into the pre-conference reports, finding and logging the numbers assigned to my petitions

I read through the Plan of Organization and Rules of Order for the 2012 General Conference, much too late to seek to get them changed to be more democratic.

I found that I could not account for four of the petitions I sent in. I know the petitions secretary and have all the confidence in the world in his integrity. But it was way too late to ask him to restore them for consideration. I sent him a note asking if he would let me know what happened to them after General Conference when he was done with all he had to do.

Shoulda done my homework weeks before coming to Tampa…. It’s all my fault that the American UMC is going to hell in a handbasket. I didn’t get my finger in the dike in time.

April 30 - The "Set-Aside Bishop"

I mention my discussion with a European bishop in a post below (“Incompetent Pastors”). I met him the afternoon of April 23 and was very impressed with him. He shared what it was like to be a bishop in his Central Conference, how very different the Church was in each of the countries to which he has been assigned. He displayed the same kind of warmth, attentiveness, and curiosity I experienced with the bishop from an autonomous evangelical Methodist denomination in Asia. Let me say it again. It is people like them that give me hope for the Church.

I brought up the idea of setting aside a bishop as sought in The Call to Action.

He said he thought it was a necessary role because there were so many things that needed more attention than just what could be provided by the secretary of the Council of Bishops and the ecumenical relations role held by a retired bishop.

I asked, “Don’t you think such a position sets up the possibility of a future holder of that office assuming the role of Pope for United Methodists?”

His reply was immediate and urgent: “The other bishops would not stand for that!”

We may never know. The General Conference voted down the idea this time.

Let me give you four words about the implications of a set-aside bishop.

The first word is “elaboration.” Sociologically speaking, institutions tend to elaborate, get more complex, as long as they have resources. It appears that the Council of Bishops which takes very seriously Wesley’s saying about the world being his parish, envisions their body as the primary bearer of that mission.

Bishops travel the world for a wide variety of what appear to be valid reasons, visiting mission stations, establishing relations with autonomous churches with a Wesleyan background, connecting with Central Conference annual conferences for mission and resourcing special projects, etc.

Bishops have chosen themes and projects for the denomination to emphasize and resource.

Bishops have developed four focuses to direct our denomination’s ministries.

The Council of Bishops is a hotbed of great ideas needing expression and financing. The more they meet, the more they generate all these programs that will serve the world and the denomination. That’s a lot of talent and insight to put in one room and not find more things to do than can be done.

That’s elaboration.

“Insularity” is the second word. When such a body gathers frequently, its members develop strong and lasting relationships. Those relationships become more important simply because they are with important people. The effect becomes circular and mutually gratifying, leading to the development of a self-conscious elite or in-group.

That in-group very quickly becomes subject to Group Think, the frame of mind in which there is no need to listen to others from outside the group because the group has such wonderful perception and experience and insight. They are too bright to be wrong. They do not really need anyone else’s input.

Insularity means that little attention needs to be given to others outside the group because there is less relational energy available for the group’s members to share with others. They really only need each other.

That’s insularity.

The third word is “power.” Such a potent group, sitting with such wonderful ideas and sense of world mission among such excellent people, needs to express those things. To do it, they need authority to move resources, people, and finances around to fulfill those things. Unless those are already at their disposal, they need to bring to bear any power they have as a body to do the politics needed to give them what they seek.

By inserting themselves into the legislative and judicial processes as far as they are allowed to go, they can add to their administrative authority and take control of what they need.

That’s power.

The fourth word is “coordination.” Since each bishop is spread pretty thin with Council of Bishops efforts and programs as well as their own jurisdictional (regional) and annual conference responsibilities, no one can really coordinate all the efforts needed to obtain their goals. A set-aside bishop is a necessity.

A single person who can organize the various talents and skills of the Council of Bishops’ members would be extremely valuable to help the body function in its desired manner.

That’s coordination.

The General Conference closed that door. But with so much energy, the Council of Bishops will try to find another way to achieve their calling. With all those godly people involved, it must be a calling from God.

Didn’t Reinhold Neibuhr write a book about that phenomenon, MORAL MAN, IMMORAL SOCIETY?

April 30 - Judicial Council Election

Four positions, two lay and two clergy, were open this year. Three of the four who have completed their eight year terms were nominated. Layperson Jon Gray, the court’s vice president, retired. Two were re-elected, layperson Beth Capen and clergy Dennis Blackwell.

I fully expected that the president Rev. Susan Henry-Crowe would be re-elected because she has been a gracious, experienced, and effective leader. What was surprising to me was that she was not re-elected.

What was not surprising was that the African Caucus went for two of their own, Rev. Dr. J. Kabamba Kiboko of Southern Congo and N. Oswald Tweh Sr. of Liberia. Both have very impressive credentials and experience, Rev. Kiboko getting her PhD from Iliff, lawyer Tweh his degree from Harvard.

There are now three Central Conference members on the Judicial Council.

Lay alternates are Sandra Lutz (East Ohio), long-time member of a wide variety of general and jurisdictional bodies, and Kurt Glassco (Oklahoma), a criminal judge.

Clergy alternates are Rev. Tim Bruster (Central Texas) GCFA and Perkins Executive Board, etc., and Rev. John Harnish (Detroit) GBHEM/DOM, trustee of colleges and seminaries, etc.

Elected president (the new members were present) on the Council is Rev. William Lawrence of Perkins. Vice president is lawyer Angela Brown from California, and secretary is once again Rev. Belton Joyner. Sally Curtis AsKew is continuing as clerk.

Whatever you may think or hear about the right or left leanings of the new court, it will be dynamic. Part of that is dependent on the issue, though there may be no telling based on past records since overseas members have access to more information than ever before. Part of it is dependent on which delegates do not run into visa problems. And part of it depends on how many of the alternates participate on a given docket item.

It will be an interesting quadrennium.

April 30 - United Methodist Insight

My intention to help the editor of the electronic publication United Methodist Insight (http://um-insight.net) with reports on things she would not be in Tampa to cover herself the first week disappeared down that golden street. When I saw her Monday afternoon, I apologized.

She said not to worry about it but to write about what caught my eye.

What a relief. That’s what I did. Who knew what story would present itself?

In fact, one that really moved us was only hours away, when I had supper with the other African delegate Chomee had asked me to meet.

An African on Homosexuality

(Written on 4/30 and published in UM-Insight on May 2, 2012)

My African friend is very proud of his sons.

I hated to do it but I said, “There is a good chance one or both of your younger sons is homosexual.”

“That is not possible,” he replied. “I am not rich and do not intend to send them to school in the west, no. Besides,” he said, “their uncle, when it is time, will teach each one to be men and the adults who live around us will correct him if he misbehaves.”

I reassured him I had science to show that as a woman goes through a birth, her hormones change a little. And at the time of birth of the younger sons, her hormones have changed so much they affect the hormones of the newborn. Scientists have noticed that homosexuality tends to occur after two or three births. The correlating change that appears to cause it is the mother’s hormones changing.

I also reassured him that the study was not done of Africans but of western families and there may be biological differences that do not work the same way there. And there is some evidence that it may be genetic. The science is not completed as yet.

He said his experience with homosexuality was that it appeared only in young men from wealthy families who went to Europe or America for college or work and came back with the lifestyle. They found it to be the style of life that was "the 'in' thing." When they return to Africa, they throw their money around and influence younger men that they would be in style if they practiced homosexuality. And many young men like the money and attention.

I told him of my experience in New York City that there were many young people going into show business or other arts in which the dominant personalities were homosexual and so the younger people felt they had to be so in order to get a job and work their way up in those professions. I said that I knew many people who did not choose their orientation but had been so since their childhood.

He had not had that experience. He explained why he thought there was homosexuality.

“The way it all began was with the king and queen a long time ago, perhaps Roman times maybe longer ago than that,” he said. “For their personal safety and the protection of those ruling the nation, they could not sleep together. One assassin could kill them both if they did, ending their rule. It would not be right to express their sexual needs with servants of the opposite sex. There could be babies, yes. But they could ask a servant of the same sex to join with them to relieve their needs. And that is how it all started.”

I thought that sounded more like an origin myth than a historical explanation but he found it very understandable and applicable to the homosexuality of which he was aware.

“They are all wealthy and have lived in the west,” he repeated, “and they chose that style of life. No, my sons will not be homosexual.”

He went on. “In my country, we look upon them as sick, as addicted just like alcoholics. But we do them no harm. The African way is to never draw blood. We would never kill them. I was astounded when I heard about how Americans are violent against homosexuals when I came to Fort Worth four years ago. In my country, we treat them like we treat everybody else. We eat with them, shop with them, do nothing to harm them. We wait until they are ready and then we work to heal them like we would any other addict. We even buy their CDs if they are talented. One singer went abroad and came back different, a sex change operation. Everyone knows but the singer is so talented we just enjoy the music.”

“So the only homosexuals you know about are made by man,” I said.

“We do not think God makes a mistake, no. We have only seen the rich sons who choose for social reasons to take that life style,” he said.

“The most important thing you say is that in your country you would never harm a homosexual,” I said.

“Never, no!”

“But,” I asked, “what about as the small towns and villages where everyone knows your business and watch as your children begin to age and die? What is happening in the suburbs and cities?”

“That is happening now,” he said. “We will see.”

“May I say again that maybe your youngest will be homosexual. That is how many came to a new understanding.”

“That has yet to be our experience. In the meantime, we cannot go back to Africa and say that The United Methodist Church is for homosexuality. It will hurt our mission.

“But,” he added, “I will give your words some thought.”

April 30 - Holy Conferencing

I came from the discussion on homosexuality with my African friend with my head still spinning. Would my LGBT friends realize how their efforts appeared to my African friend?

They had no inkling why Africans voted at Fort Worth last General Conference against moderate and positive language about enlarging the circle to take in homosexuals.

My LGBT friends tended to think in terms of pure homophobia or poor Biblical exegesis or votes bought by the gift of cell phones and free meals as the only reasons.

I really hoped the dialogue would enlarge beyond stereotypical thinking and delve into what the experience, tradition, and reason of third world delegates were.

Monday night, the delegates were divided up into regional groupings to practice Holy Conferencing in anticipation of the floor debates to come on homosexuality.

I observed the African delegation once again, spotting my two friends, and having a good location on the front edge of seats for visitors.

I happened to sit next to a UMNS reporter that I had met briefly in the press room early the week before. We chatted as the delegates gathered and exchanged ideas and concerns on a wide range of issues. We hoped the session would pay off but we both knew that the value of such practices depended on the questions asked to trigger the discussions.

There were to be four for the delegates to discuss around their tables. The groupings appeared to be of people from the same conference or language. There were earphones to translate the statements of the leaders and the questions.

My heart sank when I heard the first question: “What are the advantages of being a world-wide church?”

If I were African, I’d think the following, based on what I had seen so far these two weeks: It is easier to identify the problems rather than the advantages of trying to be a world-wide church, like the asking of questions that might mean something to westerners but don’t translate into our own language. We don’t need talk. We need help with developing schools, colleges, and seminaries. All we’re doing here is words, words, words. We want action.

The reporter and I returned to exploring things of mutual interest we had not yet chatted about. It appeared that is what happened among the delegates.

The second question was similar. ““What needs to be strengthened to maximize our fruitfulness and faithfulness?”

How do you answer such a question? What fruitful actions are we talking about? What constitutes faithfulness? How does this question engage people on a level where holy Conferencing draws on their human experience and faith systems?

The reporter and I shook our heads and chatted away just as the delegates seemed to be doing at some tables. At others, we saw frowns and confusion and no conversation. The practice did not seem to be going anywhere.

The third question was this, “How can we honor each others’ differences while we strengthen our unity?”

Which differences? What kind of unity is there beyond being United Methodists and still talking to each other and working together? Is there a problem you want us to consider which is causing disunity?

The discussion at the tables tapered off pretty fast.

The fourth question thus was asked nearly right away. “How can we move toward more equitable sharing of power and representation around the world?”

That one did not connect with the delegates, as far as we could tell. Most of the tables chatted briefly and then turned toward the leaders wondering what was next.

At that point I had to leave so I would not be driving my hundred miles too much after dark.

I hope some Holy Conferencing started after that but unless the leaders had more relevant questions with real specificity, the exercise was futile. Didn’t anyone know about Norris Sanders’ book CLASSROOM QUESTIONS or any of the work at the University of Chicago on questions and the nature of thinking?

Let’s hope the team that put that evening’s exercises together does a serious evaluation of how it went and what might have worked better.

The evening did not appear to have helped anyone to be ready to face the difficulties of the next few days’ plenary debates.

May 1 - Guaranteed Appointment Removed

The Council of Bishops has been deeply concerned about incompetent pastors and removing them because they were the obvious cause for the malais of the denomination. Every bishop, foreign or domestic, raised the question with me, “What do we do about incompetent pastors?” See the posting below entitled “Incompetent Pastors.”

Having worked with many pastors identified as incompetent by their Cabinets over the years, I saw that those who were really incompetent got removed sooner rather than later.

Those who were competent either walked away, wiping the dust of the UMC off their shoes as they walked out the door, or stayed and fought. The bishops had a hard time with the latter.

They had judged the pastor and now the pastor was disagreeing with them! That shouldn’t happen. No one should disagree with as Christian, hard-working, and conscientious a person as their bishop.

Why should the system slow down the process of removing them outright, especially in “right-to-work” (right to fire-at-will) states? Bishops have the authority to fire-at-will Local Pastors simply by not giving them an appointment.

That kind of power is needed to unload pastors who are too old (50 or older males) so that women and ethnics can replace them. That kind of power is nice to have to deal with the ones who are not loyal to the bishop (those who raise question at conference, advocate for a pastor in trouble, or disagree openly or in writing with something the bishop says or does).

For this General Conference, the bishops again sought the right to remove incompetent pastors by seeking an end to guaranteed appointments for the ordained members of annual conference. The presumption is that then the bishops would not have any more problems and the church should wax strong again, unencumbered by lousy pastors.

That Tuesday morning, the legislative committee and then the General Conference gave the bishops the removal of the words “guaranteed appointment.” And in effect, the legislation allows bishops to choose to place an Elder into a part-time ministry or to not appoint a pastor at annual conference.

BUT NOT UNTIL AFTER JANUARY 2013 when the new Discipline goes into effect.

But there are two things that the bishops did not ask for. One is that the legislation has been referred to the Judicial Council for consideration of its constitutionality which will be ruled on in late fall. I expect a very carefully thought through decision from the Council since Dr. Lawrence is a real Discipline wonk and will not allow any carelessness to be featured in the decision. And I will not predict what that would be.

The other thing the bishops did not anticipate, as I understand the legislation, was that while a pastor can be put involuntarily on transitional leave for up to two years, the Cabinet then has to document why that pastor may not then return to be appointed. They could not get away from having to prove incompetence sooner or later.

Practically speaking, they can dump a pastor any time they want. They do already, contrary to the Discipline. But some pastors are pretty motivated by unjust treatment and will follow all the options they have to fight what they see as unjust. If they don’t walk away the first week, being out for two years will not stop their seeking to return to full appointment status. The confrontations and processes have only been put off.

If the Judicial Council feels the change is unconstitutional, the bishops are right back where they started from.

Will any of them learn creative imagination to re-examine their presumptions and find wiser and more Christian alternatives? Will they realize their own role in discouraging pastors into unenthusiastic ministry?