logo

God is beyond lobbying
By Riley B. Case

It is probably a good thing that most United Methodists do not attend General Conferences. If they attend at all, rank and file United Methodists would do well to attend for only a day. They would hear some good choir music, see some bishops, and meet up with some old friends.

Those who stay longer than a day run the hazard of bewilderment, or even disillusionment. There is simply a disconnect between the way most of us do church much of the time and what happens at General Conference.

Take, for example, the matter of homosexuality. Most of us wanted to believe the church had far more important things to do than have another go-around discussing homosexuality. At the pre-General Conference briefing held in January homosexuality was not even mentioned as a major topic for discussion. Yet with a total conference cost of $6.8 million (which averages about $1,000 a minute in agenda time) tens of thousands of dollars were consumed hearing the same arguments that have been advanced many times before. Hundreds of people descended on Fort Worth (including many non-United Methodists) for only one reason—to advocate acceptance of the practice of homosexuality.

Church leaders had urged a method of doing business called “holy conferencing,” (an idea derived from John Wesley) in which the conference would discern God’s will by civility, respecting and listening to one another, and finding a common way forward. Yet the conference resembled not so much “holy conferencing” as mudslinging politics.

One morning as I made my way to the conference center, I passed through a gauntlet of seventeen different persons, distributing special interest hand-outs, pins, devotional sheets, snacks, and stoles. The stoles were being urged on people by Soulforce and its United Methodist allies to mark those who stood in solidarity with the gay agenda. Additionally, there stood big banners, drummers, a singing group, and hundred of boots in an anti-war display. 

Bishops and others spoke continually about “unity.” The conference was urged not to think of others with whom there were disagreements as “us” and “them,” but as “we together.” But “us” and “them” imagery was evident all week long. The gay-advocacy stoles are a good example. Their very presence was meant to be a public mark stamping “us” and “them”—those who believe the church is being unchristian in its stand on human sexuality, and those who upheld the church’s stand. 

It is no wonder that the S word frequently comes up during or following General Conferences. The S word is, of course, “Separation.” Four years ago, it might be recalled, Bill Hinson of the Confessing Movement actually used the word publicly. Since we are so divided, he suggested, is it better to separate amicably? Hinson’s word was not well received, nor are current similar remarks, but they illustrate the fact that United Methodism has a deep problem.

Most United Methodists have a rather traditional understanding of church. Influenced by the prevalent Christian culture around us, we are interested in family, youth, missions, and Sunday schools. Steeped in our United Methodist tradition we use words like purity, saving souls, holiness, sin, abstinence, obedience, repentance, hell, missions (with an “s”), and sometimes even revival.  We believe one should be converted before joining the church. We speak of Jesus a lot. We believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and that the practice of homosexuality is not approved by the Bible, nor by our Discipline, nor by 98 percent of Christendom across time and around the world.

The General Conference world comes with different language. There is constant talk of diversity and inclusiveness and acceptance. There is not a lot of talk about Jesus, nor about sin, and hardly any at all about purity or chastity or saving the lost. The General Conference world is the world of United Methodist corporate culture. It values the institution above all else. It deals with agendas prepared by general agencies. It is not disturbed when a committee spends a half hour deciding on what diverse categories need to be represented on general church study committees. It is caught up with politically correct language, language that is continually being changed so that no sensibilities will be offended.

And so the conference sang, “God’s got the whole world in God’s hands…” going to great extremes to keep from using any masculine pronouns for God. So several chairs of the conference pointed out that legislation was not “lost” or “defeated” since such language is the language of war. Legislation was passed removing the words “probationary members” in favor of “provisional member” because probationary sounds like someone is on trial (which is exactly why the word “probationary” was used).  Someone commented that we are going to “transform the world” (a phrase added by General Conference to our mission statement) one changed word at a time.

There is a reason why those not caught up in this corporate culture are uneasy about General Conference. Their way of using traditional language might be labeled sexist or militarist or hateful. Their traditional views of the Bible on human sexuality might be considered homophobic. Reluctance to get excited about diversity quotas might be labeled as racist. 

And, of course, all speech was monitored at Fort Worth. Without monitoring, several agencies of the church would not have reason to exist.  Specially selected (trained?) persons followed legislative groups, and sub-legislative groups, and sub-sub legislative groups armed with pen and pad in order to keep score. In one case the monitor was leaning over the shoulders of the participants to be sure she was getting everything recorded correctly. The reports of the monitors were dutifully reported and printed and properly celebrated or lamented. While many evidently felt this was advancing inclusivity and thus the gospel, others felt nagged.

General Conference (and the corporate culture) didn’t do a whole of “holy conferencing” with the renewal groups. UM Action, the United Methodist arm of the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD), was, as usual, in petition and in conversation, condemned for wanting to destroy the Women’s Division and the Board of Church and Society. Bishops joined in the attack presented by a video sent to all delegates. Of course, renewal groups in general were accused of wanting to seize power and/or undermine the best interests of the church.

None of these observations are particularly new to General Conference 2008. They have been true of General Conferences past. What did appear to be new at Fort Worth was the growing complicity of the bishops on behalf of the corporate culture value of acceptance for all. It was the bishops, after all, who took issue with Judicial Council Ruling 1032 which declared that a pastor has sole authority to determine readiness for church membership (a pastor had delayed membership to a practicing homosexual). Since 1032 overturned a bishop’s ruling that bishops’ decisions trump pastors’ decisions, the bishops closed ranks and joined gay advocacy groups.

Incumbents were pointedly not re-nominated by the bishops for the council. The slate offered by bishops was a slate supported by Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA) and other liberal advocacy groups. Persons on the MFSA-bishops nomination slate won (in the same order as recommended). While it is still not certain how the new Judicial Council will rule, there is apprehension that the strategy of those who believe the only way (or at least the best way) of reversing the church’s stand on homosexuality is by judicial activism, might prevail. 

It appears also that the bishops as a body supported the action that allowed the pro-homosexual advocacy groups to hold their every-four-year disruptive demonstration on the floor of the conference. The chair on Thursday simply circumvented the rule of the conference, which required the permission of the conference for non-delegates to have the floor, by announcing suddenly a “recess” that was not really a recess (delegates were not free to leave).

The demonstration took place and the altar was used for political theater. Sympathetic delegates, board and agency staff, and bishops stood in solidarity with the protestors (and basically against the rest of the conference). Protesters (referred to as “witnesses” by themselves and in the official press) berated the conference for not following John Wesley, for not keeping covenant with the words of the baptismal promise, and for scapegoating people on the altar of so-called unity. Bishop Talbert likened the historic stance on homosexuality to racial segregation, and declared that the action of the conference was a “sin against God.”

All this was then explained as a triumph for “Christian conferencing.” The demonstrations did not lead to civil disobedience because a group of bishops had met, were meeting, and would continue to meet with dissidents. I personally was very much aware that I had sent six letters to the president of the Council of Bishops asking for clarification of a statement and received no response. I was also aware that renewal groups seldom have had opportunity to have discussions with bishops. Yet sixteen bishops volunteered to have conversations with those who oppose the church’s stand on homosexuality and whose strategy is that of disruption.

A number of the Africans were devastated. They understood the demonstrations as a criticism of them and their convictions. Somebody commented wryly that this should not be a problem in the future because the church is moving toward Regional Conferences and the Africans will be segregated from the Americans and the misunderstanding will be avoided. 

So, it is probably a good thing that most United Methodists do not attend General Conference. The church has moved beyond General Conferences in the past and will hopefully move beyond Fort Worth 2008. God is beyond lobbying.

Riley B. Case is a retired member of the North Indiana Conference, assistant executive director of the Confessing Movement, and a member of the Good News Board of Directors. He is also the author of Evangelical and Methodist: A Popular History (Abingdon).



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