Have you ever been to a session of the General Conference of the UMC? If so, could you call what happens there “holy conferencing”? If not, something has to change.
The GC is the only body that speaks on behalf of The United Methodist Church. It is where we establish church law and make decisions that will come to bear on our denominational life for at least one quadrennium. It is crucial that our denominational decisions be steeped in prayer and discernment. Our conferencing should be rooted in the holiness of God and guided by the Holy Spirit. There is a great deal at stake in many of our decisions.
Personally speaking, “holy” is not the adjective I would use to describe what went on at the 2012 GC. It was a spectacle that would have made the Ringling Brothers blush. Constant protests and, finally, the stopping of all business of the GC by LGBT protesters is what most people will take away from our time together. Oh, and the Twitter feed–that was ugly. Despite the approximately $8.5 million we invested in this event, we accomplished very little of significance. We honed our skills of insulting one another via social media and left more divided than when we began. That is immoral.
The 2016 GC is beginning to loom like a storm on the horizon. A funnel cloud might be a better analogy. Given recent events relating to ecclesial disobedience and the possibility of a division of the UMC into two or more denominations, I think we should expect the atmosphere of 2012 to seem calm by comparison.
I suggest that we close the GC meeting space to all but delegates, bishops, and other essential personnel. Anyone who wishes to watch the proceedings can do so via live streaming. We should ban all caucus groups from having a presence inside our gathering space: no protests, no signs, no distribution of materials, no flash mobs, no stopping our work together. We should focus on the business at hand with as little distraction as possible. There is plenty of work to do relating to a broad variety of ministries. There will be issues related to security of appointment, our international ministries, our work with the poor, our ministries with people with disabilities, and outreach to young people. Legislative proposals regarding our stance on human sexuality will undoubtedly come forward. There may be various restructuring plans to consider. To have all of this business function in an atmosphere of constant distraction is unfair to the people who care deeply about these ministries. To have this business preempted by the protests of a single group–as may well happen again–would be another sign of deep, abiding dysfunction in our denomination.
Some may object that this proposal would silence demonstrations in favor of LGBT ordination and marriage in the UMC. It would not of course silence any legislation or discussion of these matters, and discussion and legislation belong properly within the business of the GC. Further, we should bear in mind that counter-demonstrations are possible as well. Do we really want to operate in such a way that any group that feels strongly enough about its position can interrupt the work of the GC, particularly in light of the enormous cost of this event? According to the UMR, the 2016 GC will cost almost $11 million. How do we want to spend that time and money?
David F. Watson 
In Fort Worth (and I believe most/all previous General Conferences), the actual plenary sessions were in a large room and spectators were able to see from the “grandstands.” So, everybody can look but you only have credentialed persons in the actual meeting space. Whether Tampa was different because Randall Miller was the Chair of the GCGC or for some other reason, I can’t say. But, having ANYBODY right next to the delegates much less people marching or chanting was ridiculous.
But, it does not seem that the main goal has been to have a business meeting where people are able to come away with the feeling that decisions were made. Ask yourself why we would be going to Portland in 2016 while the Western Jurisdiction membership is melting. How can anyone truthfully say that we are going to have the “greenest” General Conference when 95% of the delegates will have to travel over 1,500 miles to get there? What was the one distinction Portland possessed at the time of the decision?
I know, Creed…. I know.
I hear you, David, but I could not endorse closing the doors in this way. 2012 was messy. 2016 will be too. I think we are simply going to have to muddle our way through and trust that one way or another Almighty God will find a way to speak to and with and through us in the messiness of it all.
I actually thought the most difficult part was when the Judicial Council declared the reorganization plan unconstitutional – we were stuck with no good way forward since it was the last session of the conference.
God will find a way. Even if we keep getting in the way. We are in an unsettled time, but our foundation is sound.
Fair enough, Don. I appreciate the honest difference of opinion. Yes, you are right, of course. God will find a way.
Amen! The elected delegates really do need to have the opportunity to use the limited amount of time they have every 4 years to produce the best possible results.
Closing seems legitimate at this point, especially having live-streaming of goings-on; in fact I’m curious to know why this has not been the practice before. Not being clergy myself, it’s understandable that outcries would be heard against changing the policy. My question is why is “Clergy Session” (a time of preparation for Annual Conference, goings on in the conference, approvals, etc…) closed, but “General Conference” (a time of decision making which incorporates ALL of the Annual Conferences) not closed. Understandably laity have a voice but that’s why we have lay-delegates isn’t it?
The deliberations of General Conference delegates — as with all other boards and agencies — fall under the Book of Discipline’s “sunshine rule.” This means that to close the General Generation would violate both the spirit and letter of The United Methodist Church’s “open meetings” law. The rules for closing meetings are quite specific; meetings can only be closed in cases of the discussion of personnel, litigation or property negotiations. As a professional church communicator, I would be utterly opposed to closing General Conference for this reason.
In K. Blake Irwin II’s question, annual conference clergy sessions are closed because they deal with personnel issues.
The issues with behaviors at General Conference are at heart spiritual issues, not business issues. If one truly wishes to change the atmosphere for Portland in 2016, then leadership across the church must start now to extend hospitality to one another rather than repeated calls for schism.
Cynthia, my use of the word “close” is probably not a good one in light of what I am actually suggesting. Paragraph 722 in the Discipline, referring to “closed meetings,” seems to be about meetings that are not observable in real time. It also indicates that people can participate in meetings via video or teleconference. Live streaming the GC would constitute its not being closed. The same paragraph stipulates that, while the GC should live by the spirit of this rule, it is governed by its own rules of procedure.
Additionally, I respectfully disagree that atmosphere of the GCs is caused by calls for schism. Schism was not a major issue leading up to the 2012 GC, nor was it the reason that the GC was shut down for two hours. In 2016 this is likely to be a factor, but there are a host of issues that come to bear on the tenor of these gatherings.
Ms. Astle seems to want to continue to pretend that she is bringing objectivity to the discussion, but she certainly isn’t. Even for the “holy conferencing” sessions, whose idea were those? Wasn’t that from Randall Miller and the GCGC to help the delegates “accept” the changes that were going to be approved? It certainly wasn’t “imposed” by traditionalists.
All of these things are done by revisionists and then revisionists like Ms. Astle complain when they do not go well.