GC 2020: Labels Matter – Avoiding the Bard Jones “Name Game”

Frank Holbrook 1 GC 2020

Labels matter.

In How Should We Then Live?, Francis Schaeffer begins his work with the following observation: “People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize. By presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic world-view, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists. People’s presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth into the external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and therefore the basis for their decisions.”

Much of the current discussion of the future of the United Methodist Church seems to be driven by labels and presuppositions. If a person is branded or claims the label of a “Centrist”, “Progressive” or “Traditionalist” a whole host of presuppositions are made about that person.  This is true not just about people; it is also true about churches and various affiliation groups discussing the current state of the church. One doesn’t have to look far to see labels at work in current discussions. For example, a recent UM News Service article summarizes the participants at a recent meeting as follows: “In addition to the three bishops, five church leaders who represented each of three viewpoints on the inclusion of LGBTQ people in the mission and ministry of The United Methodist Church attended. There were five centrists, five progressives and five conservatives at the meeting.”

If you think labels don’t matter engage in this thought experiment. Assume that three new expressions are created at GC 2020. Assume that each will be given one of three names: “Center”, “Progressive” or “Traditional”. Now imagine the debate that would ensue if the General Conference adopted a provision that stated each of the three expressions would draw its name from a hat and whatever name it drew would be the one used for their expression going forward. I’m fairly confident that the debate about that proposal would be vocal but one-sided. Few would think that randomly naming new expressions is a good idea. Why? Because labels matter.

The Bard Jones plan proposes having the General Conference name three new expressions and have them called Progressive, Open and Traditional. Maybe those are good names, perhaps not. But the more fundamental question is: Why should the existing United Methodist Church decide how to label new expressions going forward? Should the United Methodist Church be in the naming business for new expressions? It seems to me that new expressions should be free to decide what initial impression they will make based on their name.

At least two concerns are raised by the notion of General Conference naming new expressions.

The first is the lack of meaning attendant to each name. New expressions will undoubtedly be a blend of all three components. If a “traditional” new expression decides to change aspects of superintendency or itinerancy, such an idea might actually be very progressive. For example, if a seven year fixed term for itinerancy became the norm in a new expression that might be considered “progressive”; it would certainly be a recognition of the changed circumstances of the clergy from the days ministers rode a circuit on horseback. Another easy example to consider is a “Progressive” new expression that adopts the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. Isn’t that new expression very traditional, at least in those aspects? What if a “centrist” church sings “Holy, Holy, Holy” on Sunday; isn’t that traditional? It could be argued that in none of these cases does the label completely and accurately describe the new expression. Yet presented with the choice of joining a “Progressive”, “Centrist” or “Traditional” church, most people will make their decision based on the label. That is because people will live and make choices consistent with what Schaeffer calls presuppositions.

The second concern regarding the power of labels is the human tendency to want to be in the middle. If a survey asks: “Do you consider yourself right, middle or center?” regarding most any topic, most people will consider themselves to be a part of the middle. If we return to our thought experiment and allowed the General Conference to randomly label new expressions as right, left or middle I believe most people who made a choice on which new expression to join would join the center. Even if the label “center” is not accurate, by default most people will want to join the center.  No one wants to have to explain to potential members, “this new expression may be labeled _____, but its really the center, no matter what the label says.”

In the United States, it seems to me that people quickly label positions as left, center or right. But most people want their position to be thought of as the center. Why? because most people want to be a part of the mainstream.   In the church we often miss the irony that Jesus’ call is a radical call, a call not to be in the center but to be transforming the world.  “Methodist” was once a term of derision, is it possible that at some future time “centrist” will evolve into a term of derision?  That’s a question whose answer is above my pay grade.

I don’t profess to be an expert on whether this desire to be in the center is true in the other parts of the world covered by our global expression. It would be interesting to hear the perception from other geographic areas of our global church.  Given a blank slate, what name would they choose?  Based on my reading, most of the Central Conferences strongly desire to retain the use of the United Methodist Church name and the cross and flame insignia.  This is a recognition that to these conferences, the current labels are powerful and their use matters.  On the other hand, common sense suggests that those groups that have accused the UMC of a long history of various abuses would prefer to distance themselves from the name and insignia. But those groups that feel the name and insignia carry negative connotations might also believe that part of their mission is to change the name and insignia from items of derision to items of honor.  I don’t know. These are additional common sense reasons to avoid the name game.

If General Conference decides to get into the name game it will largely be an exercise in deciding “winners” and “losers”. I can only imagine the debates that will occur over the respective names of new expressions. Common sense cautions against GC engaging in a 2020 version of the Name Game.   As mentioned above, if a new expressions are to be formed common sense says the new expressions should be free to decide what initial impression they will make based on their name.

Labels matter. They matter so much that one of the more famous contemporary quotes in the United States is one by Martin Luther King made during his I have a Dream Speech: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” One of the powerful truths in that statement is that Dr. King was saying the “label” of a person’s skin is insignificant when compared to the substance of the person’s character.

General Conference should avoid labeling any new expression; let them be judged by the content of their doctrine and polity, not their label.