UMNS Photo
Conference scene
A scene from an annual conference session
How do we provide for equal representation of both clergy and laity at annual conference? General Conference is about to consider legislation intended to address this question, but the petition brought forth actually may result in disenfranchising laity from annual conference decisions.
Petition 60015, on page 417 of the Advance Daily Christian Advocate, is presented by several conferences, including Detroit and California-Nevada. The petition would amend the Constitution, (paragraph 32) to reflect that lay equalization should be based on the average number of clergy actually attending annual conference instead of the total number of clergy in the conference.
Paragraph 32 currently directs that each annual conference is made up of all of the clergy members (active and retired) and corresponding lay members (one from each charge, additional laity for each additional clergy appointed to a charge, and several specified laity). But this often does not result in equal numbers of clergy and laity.
So for example, in my conference, this last year we had approximately 1,350 clergy members (including approximately 625 who are retired). We have approximately 700 charges. We have approximately 90 more lay members from charges who have more than one appointed clergy person and another 75 lay members named in paragraph 32 for a total of approximately 865 lay members specified under paragraph 32 (“regular lay members”).
Recognizing this difference, paragraph 32 currently provides that “If the lay membership should number less than the clergy members of the annual conference, the annual conference shall, by its own formula, provide for the election of additional lay members to equalize lay and clergy membership of the annual conference.” So, in my conference, we need to name approximately 485 lay members to equalize the numbers of clergy and laity (“equalization lay members”). As a result, my conference and most conferences have some sort of equalization formula or plan (often found in the conference standing rules).
I have surveyed a lot of the equalization plans in American annual conferences. Conferences often assign the equalization lay members to leaders in the conference (i.e. associate conference lay leaders, lay leaders of conference boards or teams, lay General and Jurisdictional delegates, lay members of General Boards and Commissions), district leaders (i.e. district officers of UMW and UMM, district lay servant coordinators), and often assign additional lay positions for youths and young adults (in additional to those already provided by paragraph 32). Some less frequently assigned categories of equalization lay members include former conference lay leaders, presidents of conference-related agencies or schools, members of the conference Board of Ordained Ministry, district administrative assistants, and additional persons of color. Some conferences simply allocate equalization lay members at-large among districts in some sort of apportionment.
Many conferences also use lay equalization to allow DSAs and CLMs assigned to local churches to be members of annual conference and also to allow members of each local church (not each charge). My conference does this. So, in practice, lay equalization can foster diversity (both racial, age, geographic, and church-size) and leadership development in the local church.
The issue addressed by petition 60015 reflects the fact that only a portion of clergy attend annual conference. The petition submitted in the Detroit conference noted in its rationale that “significant numbers of clergy, mostly retirees, are not present, resulting in an imbalance between lay and clergy.” The rationale of the Detroit conference petition indicates that in 2014, “the Detroit Conference reported 714 clergy members, but only 406 in attendance at annual conference and there were 528 laity. In 2013, there were 443 clergy and 561 laity present, and in 2012, there were 454 clergy and 565 laity in attendance. In 2014, the West Michigan conference reported 554 clergy members with 362 in attendance and 432 laity. In 2013, there were 387 clergy and 465 lay members present.”
In my conference, we certainly experience a similar phenomenon that only a fraction of clergy attend, particularly only a fraction of retired clergy. But in the Great Plains Annual Conference, the status quo results in pretty equal numbers. According to our Conference Secretary, in 2015 we had 773 clergy and 784 lay members and, in 2014, we had 782 clergy and 778 lay members. Although many retired clergy do not attend our annual conference, many small and distant churches do not send lay members to annual conference, so it sort of balances out.
The effect of this petition in my conference would be no lay equalization. Under paragraph 32, we have approximately 865 regular lay members. If only 770-780 clergy actually attend, we would not need any additional lay members for equalization.
Additionally, in my conference, this will result in less—maybe significantly less—lay members actually attending annual conference than clergy members. Under the status quo (including lay equalization), we have pretty equal numbers. As a practical matter, if lay equalization is not used, we probably have an estimated 100-150 fewer lay members in attendance. And it will reduce the diversity (age, ethnicity, geography, and leadership experience) of our conference. Conversations that I’ve had with proponents of petition 60015 acknowledge this practical effect, but responded that lay equalization was intended to equalize, not diversify. I think that’s probably true. But it may be that lay equalization has evolved to fulfill a diversity role over time.
What I would like to know is: (1) what is the current experience in other conferences, including conferences outside of the United States (i.e. are most conferences experiencing large disparity between laity and clergy attendance) and (2) what would the impact of Petition 60015 be on other conferences, including conferences outside of the United States?
Does your conference currently have a significant disparity between laity and clergy actually attending your conference? If so, is that perceived as a problem? Do you currently utilize lay equalization members? Will you still utilize lay equalization if Petition 60015 is passed and ratified? If not, will that change the complexion of your annual conference laity? I think I can say confidently that petition 60015 will be detrimental in my conference and that it will lessen overall laity participation across the connection. I think you should have answers to all of these questions before you vote on petition 60015. If we are to make such a change, I hope that we understand the impact with eyes wide open.
Randall Hodgkinson serves as the Topeka, Kansas, District Lay Leader of the Great Plains Annual Conference encompassing Kansas and Nebraska.