GC 2020 – Unified Randomness

Frank Holbrook 1 GC 2020

In one of my first posts I mentioned former New York Times columnist Russel Baker.  That post, entitled Don’t Believe Everything You Read on the Internet can be found here.    Baker wrote a series of columns that I believe were entitled, ”Things I Found on the Way to Looking Up Something Else”.  Each column was a collection of brief observations about miscellaneous topics.  If you read this site regularly you know that my main focus to date has been on potential plans for separation that may come before 2020 General Conference.  The only unifying theme for today’s post is randomness; that’s clearly an oxymoron.  On the other hand, random order is one type of order.  So maybe “unified randomness” can be my “unifying theme”.

First Random Point  – Rev. Shane Bishop wrote an excellent article about the situation facing local churches in 2020.  That post may be found here.   It probably should be required reading for all delegates to General Conference in 2020. A respected clergy friend recently e-mailed me with this observation: “Shane Bishop is right in his latest blog: there are a few churches that have already decided what they are going to do – they are leaving the denomination no matter what happens at GC2020, whether they are released from the Trust Clause or not. They may or may not take their property with them. They simply want out. These questions are ones every church is going to have to deal with after GC2020.”  My friend continued: “If delegates will go in armed knowing what they are asking congregations to do when GC2020 is over, they might deal with this issue better. If they go to ‘represent’ – it won’t matter what GC2020 decides, and General Conference will go from being a broken body to an irrelevant one. Congregations will do what they feel they need to do regardless of what GC2020 [does].”  I’ve communicated with a number of people from across the theological spectrum who agree that the separation of the United Methodist Church will begin on May 21, 2020, with or without a plan of separation.  Although I haven’t communicated with him, this statement is attributed to Adam Hamilton in this post “At a leadership conference for UMC ministers, Hamilton took a guess that between 3,400 and 7,500 churches across the U.S. will leave the UMC by this time next year.”  GC 2020 delegates should be prepared for this reality, especially non-U.S. delegates who may think taking no action will preserve unity.

Second Random Point – Fifty percent of the delegates to General Conference will be clergy; I suspect more than fifty percent will have a connection to the United Methodist Church pension plan, either as clergy, employees of the church or spouses of clergy or employees.  This article Our Nuts are in Danger by John Mauldin discusses GE’s defined benefit plan and changes that are coming to the plan.  The problem facing GE contains serious object lessons for the United Methodist Church and its defined benefit plans.  As I have mentioned before, “You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of reality”.

Third Random Point – Jeremy Smith at Hacking Christianity recently wrote a post entitled United Methodism in a Fuddling Dilemma which can be found here.   His post discusses a fuddling cup:“These three cups are joined by the handles and are also internally interconnected. With phrases such as “Fill this cup and drink it up” inscribed on other cups of this type, the unwitting drinker was deceived into drinking the contents of all three cups, thus leaving the drinker in a be-“fuddled” state.”  The point of the article is to offer the opinion that adding love to our current United Methodist Church “fuddling cup” will allow the the factions identified in the post to live in harmony.  It occurs to me that this is an example of one of the dangers of analogy.  Contrary to the author’s conclusion, I think the question some may raise when considering the fuddling cup will be “Is it really preferable to be in a befuddled state [denomination]?” Or “Who wants to the butt of the fuddling cup prank?”  I don’t endorse the conclusions but the article is worth reading if you value trying to understand other perspectives.

Finally – Like “unified randomness”, “expect the unexpected” is another oxymoron.  In reality, expecting the unexpected is not as easy as it sounds.  Has anyone in the church considered some of the things that people might label as “unexpected”?

For example, what will happen if the Ebola crisis in Africa prevents a significant number of African delegates from being present in Minneapolis during GC 2020?  If the Book of Discipline is amended to alter the church’s stance on human sexuality and the missing delegates could have altered the decision, I’m pretty sure hard feelings and chaos will reign.  That result will probably make the aftermath of GC 2019 look like a Sunday School picnic.  Has anyone considered how to handle this “unexpected” potentiality? Is it possible to allow remote participation and voting?  I’m sure the Christmas Conference of 1784 didn’t think about videoconferencing when it was compiling the initial Book of Discipline, but is it something that should be considered in the 21st Century given the advances in communication technology?  Could the Ebola crisis scenario be avoided by allowing remote participation and voting?  Could the various factions preparing for GC 2020 come together and agree to remote participation to avoid the scenario, or do some areas of the church see it a potential “political” advantage that should be maintained?  It would seem to me that those who express concern about suppression of votes in civil matters, would welcome the opportunity to insure that every duly elected delegate is granted an opportunity to vote.

If the argument is made that spiritual discernment and holy conferencing can only occur when people are physically present, why is the church wasting time and effort using video conferences on many matters where spiritual discernment is required?  As annual conferences and districts get geographically larger will they implement a rule that all meetings requiring holy conferencing require physical presence of all participants?    I know people will reject this thought process and cite Emerson’s adage: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds . . .” but someone needs to think about holy conferencing in the 21st century.  A cynic might say, “we can refer it to a committee and we’ll probably get a recommendation for a 21st century procedure by 2100”; I’m more optimistic.

If significant numbers of delegates are unable to attend due to the Ebola crisis and remote participation is rejected, would it be possible to adopt a standing rule for GC 2020 that requires any petition to pass by a margin that would equal 50% of the delegates present plus a number equal to the missing delegates plus one?  Such a rule would prevent anyone from saying after the fact that the missing delegates would have made a difference to the final outcome.  It appears that the reason for a recommendation to overturn the Gracious Exit is a sincere concern over the integrity of the actual vote (story here).     In my opinion, similar concern should be given to the integrity of the entire voting process.

That’s the end of this week’s “unified randomness”.  I hope you enjoyed it.  Thanks for reading.