logo

General Conference’s unforeseen personality
By Kenneth W.  Chalker

Spanning the past five General Conferences I have participated as either a delegate or a member of the Commission on General Conference, as Vice Chair for Program of that Commission, or as the Chairperson of the Host Committee when General Conference 2000 convened here in Cleveland. It will be a surprise to no one that as a result I have some opinions on General Conference.

There are the expected opinions. Like every other delegate, and particularly as one who would most often be supportive of the social perspective of faith in action expressed by Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA) and the Board of Church and Society, I have views on the legislation passed or defeated. Like other delegates—and regardless of being labeled liberal, moderate, or conservative—I have come away from each General Conference inspired by some of the high, spiritually-enriching moments interspersed in the two-week experience in ecclesiastical decision making. Some of those moments are planned. Others happen as marvelous serendipities.

Beyond this, however, my experience with General Conferences suggests to me that each of our gatherings—no matter the extensive advanced planning and collaborative work—takes on a personality of its own; a personality which is developed and shaped by several forces which are unforeseen and beyond any “control” of the church. Perhaps more than theology or Scriptural interpretation, such forces can, and often do, create great challenges for efforts at “holy conferencing.”

For instance, how much of the outcome and spirit of General Conference 2000 here in Cleveland was influenced by the city’s then-mayor who demanded a constant, armed, and substantial presence of police? The mayor’s demand, in spite of all our efforts, months of work, and conversation with the city, was born of his desire to handle all protest with a sure and certain display of force. As we gathered, debated, and voted within that constant show of force, how much did it affect our conversations, votes, and manner of dealing with one another? Indeed, no one will remember General Conference 2000 in Cleveland as a time when the church engaged in “holy conferencing.” It wasn’t because we were not willing or prepared. It was because all of us were immersed in imposed, armed force as well as in a spirit of confrontation. It affected absolutely everything.

How much of the outcome and spirit of General Conference 2004 in Pittsburgh was influenced by the external forces of television news crews looking for repeat performances of what happened in Cleveland? There were various caucus groups within, and outside, our denomination that utilized the hallways of the Convention Center to focus attention on themselves at the expense of what was taking place in the Legislative Sections or Plenary Hall. All of this was encouraged by the media. And, to be sure, there were too many of us who were willing to be so encouraged. All the years of effort made to foster “holy conferencing” in Pittsburgh, just as in Cleveland, were significantly compromised—and at points thwarted—by external forces beyond any intention or control of the denomination.

Now we have just experienced General Conference 2008 in Fort Worth. How much of the personality of this past General Conference was developed and shaped by the fact that we all sat in a huge refrigerator watching television in Plenary for the better part of 10 days? How did the fact that many delegates shivered through long hours of our various Legislative Section sessions affect the decisions that were made on the many difficult petitions assigned to us? There will be those who suggest that such external, unforeseen and beyond-our-control things do not, and did not, principally affect anything. I’m not so sure. Too many Central Conference delegates—as well as a great many U.S. delegates—were in heavy winter coats huddling to keep warm, to convince me that such a condition did not affect our attention, tolerance for debate, and spirit for holy conferencing.

We who honor Wesley press on toward perfection in personal piety and social outreach. Part of pressing on means recognizing that where we meet, how long we meet, and the setting of our conversations has a significant effect on the nature of our time together. It all points to the central importance of preparing as well as possible, being very intentional about the work of the Commission on General Conference, and always relying upon the prevenient grace of God which humbles us all.

 

Kenneth W. Chalker is senior pastor of First United Methodist Church in Cleveland, Ohio.



Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.

Good News | 308 East Main St. | P.O. Box 150 | Wilmore, KY 40390 | 859-858-4661 | 1-800-487-7784
info@goodnewsmag.org | About Us | ©2007 Good News magazine