Virtual Holy Conferencing and the Bard Jones Plan

Frank Holbrook 3 GC 2020

This is another post thinking about GC 2020 using the context provided by the Bard Jones Plan.

Why the seemingly obsessive critique of the Bard Jones plan? Does it really merit such ongoing fascination? The Bard Jones Plan is the starting point for discussion because it is the most widely circulated, if not the only, plan that has been published since GC 2019.

While there are many groups that may be discussing the issues surrounding creating new expressions, these discussions are being conducted outside the view of the public. While some may criticize meetings that take place “behind closed doors”, if the scare quotes are omitted working behind closed doors isn’t inherently a bad thing. The reality is that the complicated issues being discussed cannot be effectively addressed by a committee of the whole. It is incumbent on denominational leaders to meet in small groups to reach consensus on the very divisive issues facing GC 2020 so timely petitions may be filed and considered in May of 2020.

One of the core tenants of the United Methodist Church identified in the Report of the Commission on the Way Forward is Wesley’s method of employing small groups, Class and Band meetings.

In my experience small groups have recently evolved. When I first started meeting with small groups it was almost universally the practice to meet together physically in one location. Recently, technological advances have made it possible for people to meet in small groups, through conference calling and videoconferencing, while they are physically miles or continents apart. For example, a good friend of mine has been meeting with a small group that is scattered across the country in multiple time zones for the past seven years. Similarly, my wife meets weekly in a band where the members are hundreds of miles apart. Even though the physical structure of small groups has changed, the spiritual structure remains essentially intact.

As noted in the first post in this series, An Alternate Approach to Unity – An Effort to Avoid Ruling From the Grave, Bishop Jones indicated that publishing the Bard Jones plan was an attempt to start dialogue. A second core tenant of the United Methodist Church identified in the Report of the Commission on the Way Forward is Holy Conferencing. Usually as Methodists we think of Holy Conferencing as something that occurs at General Conference or Annual Conference. But isn’t it possible that Conferencing has also undergone a technological shift? Isn’t it accurate to believe that Holy Conferencing can take place when people aren’t physically present in the same spot? And isn’t it also possible to view blogs and comments as a way of conducting Holy Conferencing? And aren’t Bishop’s Bard and Jones really inviting people to engage in Holy Conferencing?

I view these blog posts, and others like it, as an attempt to engage in Holy Conferencing. For that to occur, what does virtual Holy Conferencing look like? It involves lifting up an idea and allowing others to engage that idea through comments or other posts. But for there to be virtual Holy Conferencing the whole process should be within Wesley’s guidelines succinctly summarized in 2014 by the Indiana Annual Conference here.

In addition to the Indiana guidelines listed above, as I attempt to engage in virtual Holy Conferencing I am trying to use terms that will help clarify the discussion so that each participant can understand what “Person A” is saying so clearly that they can accurately state “Person A’s” view.

Just to be clear here are the intended meanings of 4 important terms I am using:

1.  “Unity” can mean either “denominational unity” or unity among the church universal. I try to always distinguish what type of unity is being discussed because they are very different things.
2. ”New expressions” can be viewed as the equivalent of “new denominations”. It is envisioned that a new expression will be a separate entity having its own polity. New expressions may be joined connectionally by the means of a full communion agreement.
3. “Full Communion” is the connectional relationship that denominations or expressions create between themselves by a Full Communion Agreement. The Full Communion Agreement is the covenantal and connectional Agreement embodied into a written agreement and ratified by the expressions involved.
4. The “process of multiplication” is the procedure that will have to be put in place for new expressions to come into existence. It is the optimistic and hopeful approach to creating new space in the body of believers currently comprising the UMC. A less hopeful way to talk about this is the “process of division” or “process of separation”. I believe in everyone’s better Angels and trust that all participants in the process want to multiply the opportunities to transform the world by creating disciples for Jesus Christ.

On a side note, after thinking about it, I’ve concluded that Twitter may not be a substitute for virtual Holy Conferencing. I’m new to Twitter but I recently read a tweet, now buried under the sediment of other tweets, where the person (who I can’t give proper credit, unfortunately) said something like: “I prefer apples to oranges. They noted the response by someone was “so you hate oranges! And you’re totally ignoring bananas, strawberries and peaches!” That seems to be an accurate hypothetical of a Twitter “debate.” I don’t think that type of debate really qualifies as Holy Conferencing but you may read the guidelines and come to a different conclusion. If so, let’s Conference about it.

I also have noted a number of Tweets criticizing leaders, from all sides, trying to justify positions or create policies using 280 characters. It is extremely difficult to consider an issue when the debate is so limited. Watching GC 2019 as an observer, it was frustrating to see “debate” limited in many cases to four or six three minute speeches. Twitter seems to work like the virtual equivalent of a floor speech at a General or Annual Conference – a good faith effort at debate that is limited by time constraints. While twitter is a lot of things, and has vast potential to inspire, engage and challenge people, it does seem to be a virtually impossible venue for sharing dialogue. I plan on continuing to participate in Twitter, but it’s not my preferred location for “virtual” Holy Conferencing.

Finally, I must say that nothing written above should be taken to indicate that I doubt the power of Holy Conferencing that occurs at General Conference. I am eager to be physically, not merely virtually, present to experience the blessing of the communion of saints. I am certain that the Spirit is capable of working at General Conference in unexpected ways that I can’t foresee. But I also have an unshakable faith that the Spirit’s work concerning the issues faced by the UMC isn’t limited to May 5 through 15, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I know the Spirit is working now and moving through many disciples. I trust that the Spirit is moving in those small groups trying to reach consensus and find a new way forward that will create peace, harmony and an outward example of Christ’s Church. God will honor and bless their work.