God's Irony: Rule 44 and the Bishops' Way Forward

by

United Methodist Insight Editorial Analysis

Now that some of the Portland dust has settled, a fascinating – perhaps even disquieting – irony has emerged: there's a parallel between the fracas over the alternative decision-making practice known as Rule 44 and the conversations orchestrated by Bishop Warner H. Brown Jr. that led to the Council of Bishops' document known as "A Way Forward." Specifically, Bishop Brown and his cohorts used a similar, if not the same, "holy conferencing" process outlined in Rule 44, but few General Conference delegates and observers realized the implications in the heat of the moment in Portland.

Conservatives' major objection to the Rule 44 alternative process was that it placed too much power in the hands of a small, select body known as the Facilitation Group. The facilitators' role was to have taken reports from the smaller groups discussing sensitive legislation and compile them into consensus recommendations that would have come back to the full General Conference for action. After 2-1/2 days of parliamentary maneuvering, Rule 44 was voted down.

Clandestine talks

Once General Conference asked the Council of Bishops for leadership, it came to light that a process resembling Rule 44 already had been under way clandestinely for about two months prior to the May 10-20 meeting in Portland.  Outgoing Council of Bishops' president, Bishop Warner H. Brown Jr. (Sacramento, Calif., Area), had called together leaders of various unofficial United Methodist groups and legislation sponsors to consult about the UMC's future, particularly the threat of schism.

Among other things, this ad hoc group – first publicly acknowledged by Bishop Bruce Ough (Dakotas-Minnesota Area) when the bishops' proposal was announced – discussed the formation of a special commission to examine the deep divide in United Methodism. This divide's presenting issue is the debate over human sexuality, but that's the tip of the iceberg. The full conflict roots in sharply opposing theologies, especially over the authority and interpretation of the Holy Bible.

As if the talks themselves, so like Rule 44's small groups, weren't irony enough, those whom Bishop Brown called together include some of the most elite among United Methodist movers and shakers. In other words, they were a small group.

While Bishop Ough declined to name those in the ad hoc group during General Conference, one of the participants, the Rev. Don Underwood of Plano, Texas, disclosed the names in his report to the June 5-7 session of the North Texas Annual Conference. Involved in the talks were:

 Added later were Bishop Bruce Ough, incoming president of the Council of Bishops, and three Central Conference bishops whom Rev. Underwood didn't name (possibly because of the extreme stigma attached to sexuality issues in many African contexts). Also present during the talks were:

  • The Rev. Patricia Hixon, executive director of JustPeace, a United Methodist ministry of mediation and reconciliation, who stood ready to apply conflict resolution skills of discussions became rancorous; and
  • The Rev. Greg Bergquist, superintendent for leadership development in the California-Nevada Annual Conference, who served as scribe for the proceedings.

Select group

Any way one slices this list, it's a select group of influencers and decision-makers. It's hard to imagine that some of these folks would "extend the right hand of fellowship" (to use an old-time Methodist phrase) to their adversaries, because they've been at each other's throats for decades. Nonetheless, reports of their conversations claim both respect and mutual cordiality among participants. That has to be the work of God's Holy Spirit, because human effort hasn't wrought such an encounter in 44 years. And that's to be celebrated.

What's still to be lamented, however, is that the 2016 General Conference wasted three days of its precious time debating and rejecting the same kind of process. That rejection, coupled with the outright arrogance and callousness demonstrated by some delegates, engendered fear and mistrust. Perhaps the disclosure of those behind the bishops' proposal will reduce tensions among long-entrenched factions. After all, if one's like-minded leaders were involved in developing the bishops' proposal, shouldn't that be cause for communal respect and participation in the journey toward unity?

Such affirmation only can happen, however, if we United Methodists become willing to do what these leaders apparently did: surrender ourselves to the greater spiritual task of discerning God's will for The United Methodist Church, not the kind of hate-filled politics that corrupted the 2016 General Conference.

United Methodist Insight Editor and Founder Cynthia B. Astle has reported on eight General Conferences.