logo

Sometimes a cell phone is just a cell phone

We imagine that many United Methodists will undoubtedly have come across an article regarding the distribution of cell phones to some delegates from Africa and the Philippines at the recently held General Conference of the UM Church (p. 28-29). The phones were given at the beginning of the 10-day denominational gathering in Fort Worth, Texas, as an expression of hospitality by the Renewal and Reform Coalition, which consists of The Confessing Movement, Good News, Lifewatch, UMAction, The Renew Women’s Network, and Transforming Congregations.

The United Methodist News Service (UMNS) article in question published charges made by some denominational officials alleging that the phones were being used coercively for the purpose of “vote-buying” and “bribery.”

The article quoted four African delegates, one of whom declined the free phone because he had been warned in a pre-General Conference briefing that there would be strings attached to gifts. The other three delegates received the cell phones as a kind gesture. “There were no strings attached to the cell phone,” said one. “We were told that the phones are to be used for local connections in the United States and to contact my fellow delegates,” said another. “They did not give us conditions. It was free,” said the third.

The charges: Despite the testimonies of the African delegates and the fact that no General Conference rules had been violated—in spirit or in technicality—the story quotes a long list of United Methodist officials and a “monitoring team” who disapproved of the gesture. Since there was no evidence of immorality or illegality, the charges were stated in vague terms such as:

• “wondered if democratic processes have been compromised,”

• “concern that the coalition is trying to sway the votes of African delegates who are typically more conservative than their U.S. counterparts,”

• “fear the coalition might use the phones to offer suggestions on how to vote on particular issues.”

Of the eight quoted denominational officials, none of them had first-hand knowledge of the give-away, nor had any of them contacted the Renewal and Reform Coalition with their concerns. Nevertheless, the condemnation was swift and severe.

• One bishop thundered that the action “crosses the boundaries of what is appropriate” and “violates the very essence of what it means to be a Christian community.” Hardly an unbiased observer, the bishop is ironically featured in a recently produced video condemning “renewal groups” in the United Methodist Church.

• A “monitoring team” from the Commission on the Status and Role of Women and the Commission on Race and Religion proclaimed the gesture “inappropriate behavior and it destroys community” and gives the “appearance of paternalism, manipulation, exploitation, and of course, racism.”

• One agency official went so far as to slanderously claim that some renewal groups have journeyed to Africa to provide “deliberately distorted and inaccurate information to African United Methodists.” He claimed that he was “really, really” troubled of the “pattern of manipulation of the African delegates.” No evidence was provided, no proof was required.

• Yet another executive even claimed that the early colonialists used the same sort of tactics. “I hope they would not willingly engage in any sort of behavior that would undermine the humanity of people of color whether they are in the United States or other countries,” she said. “This action of giving cell phones to buy or manipulate people can be interpreted as a return to that sort of racist behavior.”

• As if all that was not enough, one more denominational official called the gift of the cell phones “bribery” and said “this giving of gifts is nothing but vote-buying, which is a perversion and abuse of a democratic and sacred act.”

The distress expressed was almost overwhelming. Except, of course, the anxiety was fraudulent. The democratic process was not perverted, abused, or compromised. Christian community was not violated, and it most certainly was not destroyed. No one had been manipulated or exploited, and most assuredly the humanity of people of color had not been undermined. The phones were not used to “offer suggestions on how to vote on particular issues.” Lastly, the repeated and cavalier accusations of racism did not make the gesture racist.

In the United Methodist News Service article, the Rev. Robert Renfroe, president of The Confessing Movement, made clear that “it is demeaning to the African delegates to think that a gift of a cell phone would change their vote. They are highly educated, aware of the issues and supremely principled in their beliefs; and to think that the gift of a cell phone would change their view is demeaning to them.”

Holy conferencing? Amazingly enough, all this denunciation was expressed by persons who were not present when the phones were given away, nor did they speak to any of the Coalition leaders before they leveled their accusations.

“What’s particularly sad and disappointing about these comments,” said Renfroe, “is that they were made in the midst of a General Conference that was asked to commit itself to holy conferencing.  The immediate response of the sources quoted in the article was to publicly impugn the motives of brothers and sisters in Christ without ever having spoken to them.”

To give readers a sense of what kind of “holy conferencing” guidelines were being encouraged by United Methodist leaders, here are a few.

• Every person is a child of God. Always speak respectfully. One can disagree without being disagreeable.

• Be careful in how you express personal offense at differing opinions. Otherwise dialogue may be inhibited.

• Accurately reflect the views of others when speaking. This is especially important when you disagree with that position.

• Avoid using inflammatory words, derogatory names, or an excited and angry voice.

• Avoid making generalizations about individuals and groups. Make your point with specific evidence and examples.

• Remember that people are defined, ultimately, by their relationship with God—not by the flaws we discover, or think we discover, in their views and actions.

These are great principles to live by. As is evident, however, the quoted United Methodist officials did not choose to participate in “holy conferencing” with the Renewal and Reform Coalition.

Authentic Christian dialogue: Those leaders quoted in the news article might have done well to have followed the charitable example of Bishop Roy I. Sano, executive secretary of the Council of Bishops. His concerns about this very issue led him to initiate a face-to-face conversation with Coalition leaders to inquire about the distribution of the phones. We were grateful to Bishop Sano for his gracious spirit in seeking further information about the issue. It’s amazing how much mutual understanding and respect can be gained when a church leader takes the time to talk and listen. Bishop Sano went away apparently satisfied that his concerns were unfounded. 

As we explained to Bishop Sano, knowing that virtually all U.S. delegates would come to Fort Worth with personal cell phones, the Coalition determined that it would be helpful to provide a phone for Central Conference delegates while they were in the United States. “We were particularly interested in helping delegates who would find it challenging to purchase a phone while they were in Fort Worth,” said the Rev. James V. Heidinger II, president and publisher of Good News. “We believe that equal access to technology helps create a more just and equitable playing field.”

“The cell phones are available to all Central Conference delegates—not just persons of color,” the Rev. Tom Lambrecht, chair of the Renewal and Reform Coalition, told UMNS. “They were given with no expectation on our part. No questions were asked on our part, and we find no difference between our giving of these gifts and the gifts that are given by general boards and agencies and other groups to the delegates of General Conference.”

For the past several General Conferences, Good News has hosted a daily, complimentary briefing breakfast for liberal, conservative, and moderate delegates. We’ve shared eggs, sausage, cereal, and yogurt with them all. We tell them what is going on at General Conference, present our perspective, and encourage them to vote on behalf of the future of the church.

Activists within the church on the other side of important issues do the same exact thing through different means. In the midst of our deliberations, that is an important expression to our denomination’s pluralism and diversity.

We had come to Fort Worth with high hopes that this General Conference might promote an atmosphere where we would not assume the very worst about those with whom we disagree. Unfortunately, in this instance, that was not to be the case.

 

Frequently Asked Questions 

• Were the phones used to send massive text blasts to Central Conference delegates to manipulate the Judicial Council election? No. The phones given to the Central Conference delegates were never used in a text blast or massive voice mail plan to steer any election.

• Is it against the rules to endorse candidates for the Judicial Council? Not only is it not against the rules, the Council of Bishops has their slate printed in the Daily Christian Advocate right before the election. It is a long-held practice for caucuses within the United Methodist Church—both progressives and traditionalists—to endorse candidates.

• Wasn’t there a voting guide attached to the cell phone box? There was nothing attached to the cell phone box. Neither was there an endorsement pamphlet folded up inside the box. The Coalition’s pamphlet would be nearly impossible to fold up and shove into a box; it was a glossy 11” x 17” folded publication—too bulky for any such attempt. Is it possible that someone took the pamphlet and attempted to fold it up and place it in the box? Perhaps, but we can’t figure out why. Logistically, it is a very odd claim. The Coalition’s pamphlet was given out separately from the cell phones, distributed to all who were at our breakfast briefings, not just to cell phone recipients.

• Was there a special Judicial Council endorsement sheet for Central Conference delegates? No. The Coalition’s Judicial Council endorsement pamphlet that was given out at the briefing breakfast was the same exact piece that was sent to every single American delegate in the mail—no differences. Because we were told that the mail was unreliable to reach Central Conference delegates in time for General Conference, the Coalition distributed them once they had arrived in Fort Worth.

• What was in the letter to Central Conference delegates that informed them of the phones? The letter alerted Central Conference delegates about 1) the availability of a free cell phone, 2) the free, daily Briefing Breakfast, 3) the Coalition’s Hospitality Suite, where they could check their email and pick up a gift bag that included chewing gum, snacks, etc., and 4) the importance of the Judicial Council voting, including our slate.

At no point in the letter is it even vaguely inferred that there was a quid pro quo connection between the breakfasts, cell phones, and hospitality suite, and voting for our particular slate. As we make clear in our endorsement pamphlet, “We’re sure that many outstanding candidates will be nominated at General Conference to serve on the Council. Here are five whom we recommend for your consideration.” Hardly bribery and vote-buying, as has been falsely alleged.

 • Where was the Coalition’s endorsement pamphlet distributed? In addition to being sent to all U.S. delegates, the Coalition’s pamphlet was distributed at several of the morning breakfast briefings, at a Transforming Congregations lunch, and in the Coalition’s hospitality room. All places and times were public. There were no clandestine meetings. Everything was out in the open with the names of the endorsers and endorsees clearly printed—unlike the slate with no endorser names that was distributed on the very floor of General Conference right before the Judicial Council vote.

• Were Central Conference delegates told that their cell phones would be able to be used to call home? Central Conference delegates were not promised that their cell phone would call home. It was made clear to them that it was for their use in the United States to be able to reach their colleagues while they were at General Conference. Some delegates, however, did use their phone to call home. The Verizon phone had enough pre-paid minutes to be used roughly one hour per day while they were in the United States at General Conference—with unlimited minutes to talk to one another. Being able to call home was simply not a promise that was made. 

• Is it true that the General Conference unanimously condemned the actions of the Coalition and appointed a special Ethics Committee to look into the issue? No, the General Conference did not unanimously condemn the Coalition. Yes, the delegates did unanimously vote to create an Ethics Committee for future General Conferences. We think it sounds like a wonderful idea. Everyone longs for a level playing field as we gather together.

Many delegates were distressed about the wide distribution on the floor of General Conference of another, unsigned slate for Judicial Council candidates by a supposed “politically unaffiliated group of fifty jurisdictional and central conference delegates.” (This slate must have been very influential, as all the candidates on it won election in the order they were listed!) Although we can’t help but grin when the politically savvy among us refer to themselves as “unaffiliated,” we were relieved to get the advance tip to look for the special winning slate from the Methodists For Social Action newsletter—a group that is notably not politically unaffiliated.

Additionally, many delegates were deeply troubled by the sneaky distribution of the crass, unsigned literature lampooning “biblical literalism” prior to the discussion regarding reorganizing our global denomination. Thankfully, General Conference will have an ethics committee in place four years from now to prevent these type of shenanigans from happening again (we hope).

—Good News Editorial Team



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