Whom Shall We Send to Portland?

by

In the classic movie "Anastasia" starring Ingrid Bergman, Yul Brynner and Helen Hayes, there's a pivotal moment toward the end when two great actresses play out the same kind of choice now facing The United Methodist Church. It's worth looking at that cinematic scene as we begin to focus on the 2016 General Conference.

Moments before Anna is to be recognized as the Russian Grand Duchess Anastasia, her grandmother the dowager empress imparts some wisdom:

Empress Marie: … I like the past. It's sweet and familiar. The present is cold and foreign. And the future? I don't have to worry about that, but you do. It's yours, [Anastasia]. … Here, help me take these off.

Anastasia: [Catherine the Great]'s emeralds?

Empress Marie: Yes, I want to give them to you.

Anastasia: Grandmama, you have already given me what I wanted most … myself."

Then Anastasia embraces her grandmother, whose face crumples in an agony of love and loss. In the next moment, the supposed princess walks out of her grandmother's life, leaving behind all the status and riches of royalty for true love.

Granted, this is a Hollywood tale full of schmaltzy romance. Yet we all live by stories, by fables, by parables, all of which carry for us truths that transcend factual proof. I submit that this scene, melodramatic as it may seem some 60 years after it was filmed, works in the same way that Jesus's parables did. It demonstrates the kind of selfless love that leaders of The United Methodist Church are being called to have for the denomination's future good.

The General Commission on the General Conference has set the stage for the next act in the denomination's story. The commission voted recently that the 2016 global lawmaking assembly scheduled for Portland, Ore., will have 15 percent fewer delegates than in the past 40-odd years – down to 850 from a previous 1,000 representatives. The decision is expected to save the UMC about $600,000 on the two-week gathering's cost, which in 2012 totaled some $8.4 million. Two important things should be noted about this recent decision: 1) the 2012 General Conference gave the commission the authority to allot the delegate total, so its directors aren't acting beyond their scope; and 2) a smaller global assembly will make it possible for a future General Conference to be held outside the United States.

This staging now sets up the major question for members of Annual Conferences, those who actually choose the delegates to General Conference: Can Annual Conferences have the wisdom and moral fiber to let go of what they most love for a greater good?

The United Methodist political process makes this a crucial question. Annual Conference delegate elections sometimes have been bloody affairs, as this writer and others have witnessed. In too many cases, delegate elections are controlled by special interests that maneuver voting blocs to back candidates supporting their cause, besting other highly qualified candidates who don't share their views. Yes, this General Conference political process very much resembles U. S. congressional elections with all their district gerrymandering and moneyed special interests. And in 2012 the United Methodist process resulted in a General Conference that ultimately accomplished nothing.

Its proponents say that the General Conference election process adequately represents "the will of the people." In reality, the process represents only the oligarchy of The United Methodist Church – those with money and time to participate. The bulk of the world's 12 million United Methodists have no say in who represents them at General Conference. A rank-and-file person in the pew doesn't get to vote on GC delegates unless he or she is a member of the Annual Conference.

What's more disheartening, lay members of Annual Conference are generally church employees, clergy spouses, professionals who can take vacation, or retirees with time and income to devote days to deliberating church matters. In particular, representation from the church's younger members is scant, especially when compared to active special interests experienced in organizing bloc voting. Lay members of Annual Conference may or may not be well versed in church matters. They may be people implored to serve in order to get sufficient laity-clergy equalization. Some lay members rely on others' instruction to vote, especially on matters such as electing General Conference delegates.

Given this political reality, it becomes clear that if we continue to rely on this flawed political process alone, United Methodism's future will continue to be what it long has been: unrepresentative and dysfunctional. Or, in a single word, selfish.

This crucial issue matters now because some annual conferences intend to elect their 2016 General Conference delegates in 2014 to give them more time to prepare. Yet preparation matters not so much this time as people. What kind of delegates will be sent to Portland in 2016? Will they be people whose lives are governed by surrender to God's Holy Spirit more than by obligation to special interests? Will they represent a genuine cross-section of United Methodists – men and women, young and old, all racial, ethnic and economic groups ­– who understand that a healthy community works best through diverse collaboration and mutual compromise?

Much as we (this writer included) may wish to cling to a sweet and familiar past amid a cold, uncomfortable present, can we let go of what we most love for the sake of a future that God desires? Like blind men searching out an elephant, each certain that the part he feels constitutes the entire animal, we can only discern God's vision if we look beyond ourselves to a greater good. As the old hymn asks, are we able?