While presiding at annual conference sessions, one United Methodist bishop so frequently referenced “holy conferencing” that a group of clergy began to playfully count how many times he used the phrase in a given hour.
After emphasizing “holy conferencing” for at least the past four General Conferences, the Commission on General Conference now wants that bishop and other United Methodists to adopt “Christian conferencing.” It is not entirely clear why the shift was made, but it is clearly the preferred way the commission wants the church to think of General Conference.
But exactly what “Christian conferencing” is, and even more importantly, how 864 delegates charged with a largely legislative task express it, is highly debatable.
At the pre-General Conference gathering earlier this year in Portland, Oregon, Judi Kenaston, chair of the Commission on General Conference, said, “Christian conferencing is what General Conference is all about. We are a connectional church with many varied cultures and opinions.”
Photo by Mike DuBose, UMNS
Bishop Christian Alsted
Bishop Christian Alsted
Bishop Christian Alsted, who serves in the 9,254-member Northern Eurasia and Europe Central Conference, and is chairman designate of Connectional Table, added, “In fact, Christian conferencing is not just a time set apart for conversation, but rather it is everything we will do at General Conference together.”
These are fine sentiments as far as they go, but they are so grandiose and broad as to either render the idea meaningless, or to reduce it to the simple observation that the delegates are Christians so the conference is a Christian conference.
Dr. Kevin Watson, scholar in Wesleyan and Methodist Studies at Candler School of Theology, attempted to bring some clarity to the idea of Christian conferencing in two blog essays (click here and here). Although Wesley only used the phrase “Christian conference” once (apparently he never used the phrase “holy conferencing”), Watson noted that he used it in his important discussion about the various “means of grace.”
Unfortunately, Wesley did not fully define what he meant by Christian conferencing so scholars are left to tease out a definition and its context as well. According to Watson, Wesley would have believed that a “Christian Conference was honest, direct, piercing conversation with other Christians that was intended to help the participants grow in holiness. These conversations were most obviously situated within the weekly class meetings and band meetings.”
The above point makes problematic the commission’s incessant and obsessive reference to General Conference as a time of Christian conferencing.
There is nothing in our Book of Discipline or in the section on the duties and responsibilities of the commission, mandating that GC be conceived as a time of holy or Christian conferencing. Neither concept is even mentioned. Whether we like it or not, General Conference is largely a legislative conference where good, but imperfect, people come to discern God’s will for the people called Methodists.
Requiring or thinking it is even possible for 864 delegates, many who are strangers to one another, to engage in something intended for small, intimate groups of people who see one another regularly is simply unrealistic.
The Commission on General Conference is on a slippery slope to trying to define the conference and manufacture desired outcomes, neither of which are its tasks. It needs to assume the best of the delegates and those who elected them, and therefore dispense with telling delegates how they ought to act and speak under the rubrics of Christian or holy conferencing.
The commission best serves the delegates when it most closely adheres to its main task, to organize and efficiently run a conference that allows the delegates to freely and openly consider and discharge important matters before the church.
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergyperson and analyst for Good News. This article is reprint with permission from Good News' website.