British intelligence agents hacked into the Islamic jihadist magazine Inspire and changed the directions for making a homemade bomb to a recipe for making cupcakes. Even symbolically a bomb and a cupcake are polar opposites. Imagine the shock of those who thought they were going to find directions for making a bomb and discovered a cupcake recipe.
UMC General Conference 2012
I read that Associated Press story during several days of meetings that included a lot discussion about our upcoming United Methodist General Conference. I don’t know how easy it was for those hackers to accomplish their task, and I doubt if many people who wanted to make bombs were satisfied with making cupcakes. I do know that General Conference is not going to be easy, and no single group of people is going to be satisfied with the outcome.
As I survey the situation I believe there are competing concerns in four areas. The various groups of General Conference delegates will most likely each focus their time and energy around a particular one of those issues with little interest and time given to the others.
The first issue is finance. We are going to have to make some tough, perhaps dramatic, decisions about the financial life of the general church. Certain groups of delegates will probably be thinking, if we don’t get this right, nothing else matters much.
Word has already gone out from GCFA: we cannot sustain our present administration and structures. Measureable cuts are required. Even if we could sustain the present system, the deeper question is, are we being responsible in our stewardship?
Sometimes it takes hard times to force us to look objectively and with “kingdom eyes” at the way we spend our money. Currently, 50% of the budget of one of our largest annual conferences is required for health care and pensions. This is not a local problem. There were thoughts not many months ago that the “pension issue” in our church was so close to a crisis point that we would need to call a special General Conference to deal with it. This is a church wide issue.
Maxie Dunnam
Though perhaps the most pressing and dramatic, health care and pensions are not the only financial issues. Colleges and seminaries are experiencing a loss of monetary support. Local congregations are cutting back on staff and local missions to be as responsible as possible to the apportionment system. I am hearing or reading nothing that predicts a near end to our present national economic crisis. Christians do give sacrificially, especially in tough economic times (Praise God!), but the state of the economy necessarily impacts Christian giving. So a good bit of General Conference energy will be concentrated on finances.
A second area that will be a priority to certain groups is structure and leadership. For these groups, if we don’t get this right, nothing else matters much. Structure and leadership are connected. The Bishops’ Call to Action has already signaled that structure is going to be a major concern. Are there structures that need to be completely eliminated? Are the sizes and make-up of our boards and agencies designed for effective functioning and can we sustain them financially in their present configuration? The temptation will be to compromise and “rearrange the chairs on the deck,” but our financial situation is not going to allow that.
It would seem helpful to ask our boards and agencies several key questions:
- What have you accomplished during the past four years that would not have been accomplished if you were not operational?
- How has what you have done made the Christian witness stronger and more effective both in the lives of individuals and in the structures of our culture?
- Did what you have done require all the staff and board leadership to accomplish?
- Are local faith communities stronger because of you? If the local congregation is the basic unit in our movement, what have they been able to accomplish because of your work?
To a marked degree, structure determines administrative systems and leadership is of paramount importance. In our church this necessarily includes the nature of the episcopacy. One indication of that is the proposal for a “lead” bishop set aside for general church leadership without annual conference responsibilities. I personally think this is a good idea, but how that person is selected and what the job description will be are of huge importance.
Also, should we not be questioning our present practice of “life” terms for bishops? UM bishops are not ordained in our tradition as they are in the Roman or the Anglican Church. They are elders set aside for particular leadership responsibilities. Why not elect them for a tenure that we might “test” them and that they might test themselves in fulfillment of ministry?
The Ministry Study Committee will be bringing recommendations about so-called “guaranteed pastoral appointments” and the ordination process. This addresses the leadership issue. But how it addresses it, we have yet to see.
It is difficult for any one to make a case that leadership is not the primary problem in our church today. It is not enough, then, to deal with the leadership question after the leaders have already been confirmed. We must deal with the question long before that.
Is anyone looking seriously at which seminaries are producing the most effective leaders? Is our present system of theological education and the MDiv degree requirement for ministry serving the church and the kingdom most effectively? Do we have an adequately balanced emphasis on graduate theological education and practical equipping for ministry? Do we need a different system of accountability for the schools that are providing the preparation of our ministers other than our current Commission on Theological Education that is part of the University Senate?
Since Local Pastors are becoming more and more essential in our system, are we giving enough attention to equipping them for the ministry they are performing?
A third area that certain groups of delegates will give most of their energy and attention is social issues. For these groups, if we don’t get this right, nothing else matters much and they have already sounded the signal that this is their priority issue. For instance, a group of retired bishops called the church to alter its stand on the practice of homosexuality (ordination and same-sex marriage). Additionally 70 ministers in Minnesota signed a pledge to perform same-sex marriages, despite the position of the church prohibiting this. The open opposition to the church’s present position will force those who are committed to this position to spend time and energy retaining it since those who oppose it will be initiating ongoing challenges.
There are folks who are concerned about other social issues who will be frustrated by all the time and energy spent on sexuality issues, and the hurried and casual attention given to important issues like immigration, war, joblessness, hunger and abortion. The structures of the legislative committees may not allow ”equal” time among pressing issues and this will be frustrating for many.
Can we change a recipe for making a bomb into a recipe for making cupcakes? I seriously doubt it. What we can do is make “holy conferencing” authentically honest rather than use it as a manipulative ploy to get our own way. We can commit ourselves to making the integrity and effectiveness of the church our priority, rather than our personal positions and interests. We can guard against demonizing others because we disagree. More than anything else, we can ask ourselves about any issue, “Is this in harmony with a biblical kingdom vision and will it advance our mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the sake of the world?”
