Five Random Thoughts on Pre-General Conference Briefing

by

Yesterday (Jan. 23) was Day 1 of United Methodist Communications Pre-Conference Briefing.  I’ll share a few random initial thoughts and questions; but, I’ll ask readers to bear in mind that initial impressions aren’t a substitute for reflection and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The gathering yesterday was reminded that there are about 100 days left for conversation, prayer, guidance and discernment between now and the close of GC2020.  Like objects in the rear view mirror, dates on the calendar are closer than they appear. Come, Holy Spirit.

Random Thought 1 – The Rev. Kent Millard’s anecdote about the two Moose skeletons, with inextricably locked horns, outside Denali Park is certainly a striking image and probably an apt analogy for our current situation. Many speakers noted that some of the required changes may be constitutional.  Pam Liston’s legal presentation highlighted the hurdles to constitutional change: super majority vote at General Conference, Judicial Council approval and ratification by a super majority of voters at the annual conference level.  A compromise reached by the GC 2020 delegates can be undone by the Judicial Council or the Annual Conferences. This has surely made a mediated compromise vastly more complicated. The other analogy that comes to mind is the Greek legend of Alexander the Great and the Gordian knot. [Though many had tried to untie the knot to conquer a kingdom, Alexander simply sliced through it with his sword.] The Gordian knot is the reason many local churches and people will decide to cut the knot rather than try to untie it.

Random Thought 2 – Rev. Darren Cushman Wood mentioned that one of the guiding principles of the Indianapolis Plan was to avoid legislating from the grave.  For those who are interested, a rationale for this principle may be found here under the discussion of Foundational Point 1.

Random Thought 3 – A question was raised about the constitutional requirement of the two-thirds vote in Local Churches. I’ve written a long piece about this potential issue here and opined that there is no such constitutional requirement. Delegates and the Judicial Council may wish to consider it. I could be wrong but I think the post helps frame the issue.

Random Thought 4 – One of the stated goals for the UMCNext Plan is to “create a church that will attract our children.” Although I’ve put this in quotes I will caution that it is my paraphrase, I may not have captured the exact quote but I think I have captured the sense of what was said by Lonnie Chafin.  In thinking about this goal, two truisms came to mind: “Generals always fight the last war” and “Economists fight the last depression.” In many ways, the church’s current crisis response team’s thinking is framed around responding to the effect of modernity. Should modernity be the leading edge of the church’s “contextual” basis if one wants to build a church to appeal to their children (putting aside for a moment the fundamental question as to whether that is a worthwhile or scripturally sound approach for the church)? The NEW Plan is a plan that is largely based on the post-modern view of the world.  Modernity versus post-modernity is a topic wildly beyond the scope of a paragraph in a blog post but a quick comparison chart to help one understand the issue may be found here. If you want to build a church that appeals to your children, the question to ask seems to be “how will the church contextualize itself in post-modernity?”  The NEW Plan is the only post-modern option right now; its solution is to conclude that the church should commit seppuku to atone for its past sins. How does the church respond to an upcoming generation that is told that a person’s identity is largely a social construct and must be self-determined?  If that view is accepted, what parts of scripture and historic teaching will need to be “contextualized” using a post-modern rationale?  Should the church be trying to adapt itself to appeal to a post-modern “audience” or should it be offering an entirely different vision?

Random Thought 5 – I regret that I wasn’t offered the opportunity to offer a short segment on the Plain Grace Plan. I believe it has a lot of features that I think would appeal to the delegates.  If the delegates are charged with considering creating a plan with the best of all worlds I honestly believe it has something to offer.  I may write a future post that offers Plain Grace Lite or Plain Grace 2.0 (building on the work of the Protocol).  Of course, such a proposal violates what appears to be a cardinal rule of plan evaluation: “A plan must be judged based on the composition of the drafters, not the merits of the proposal.”  People should recognize that such a rule itself is rooted in post-modern thinking.  

During Q & A, Rev. Joe Harris said he had 12 questions but he would only ask three.  I have a lot of other random thoughts and questions, but I think five is enough for now.

Thanks for reading and keep praying for GC 2020.

Retired attorney Frank Holbrook of Martin, Tenn., is a first-time delegate to General Conference from the Memphis Annual Conference. He is the author of the "Plain Grace" plan for the United Methodist Church's future submitted to General Conference 2020. This post is republished with permission from his blog, Plane Grace.