Missouri 2020 Delegation Update

The 2020 Missouri Delegation has been working hard in these past couple of months.

+ In November, the Missouri Delegation officially endorsed Rev. Sally Haynes as a candidate for bishop. Sally had shared with the delegation at our September meeting that she was discerning a call to bishop. At that meeting, there was a sharing of initial thoughts, a prayer for discernment, and an outline for the process ahead. In November, Sally shared some updates with the group, there was a time of questioning and healthy conversation, and then the delegation voted our support of Sally’s candidacy. We ask for continued prayers for the remainder of the process ahead. 

+ In our meetings thus far, we have been coached by Rev. Melissa Bailey-Kirk, who is a trained facilitator in the Circle Way of meeting. Our hope has been to set a different tone for our work together, one of trust and openness, so that our work may be done as a spiritually centered and fully engaged delegation. We are so grateful to Melissa for coaching us through our first few gatherings.

+ We have had several other guests with us, providing input into our work process. Rev. Jessica Foster and Rev. Chelsey Hillyer spoke with us about their participation in the UM Forward meeting last Spring. We spent some time speaking with Terry Shoemaker and Ross Lundstrom from Wespath about legislation Wespath is proposing for General Conference this year. We had conversation with Rev. Bob Phillips of the Illinois Great Rivers Conference about his participation in the Wesley Covenant Association. Each guest was invited so that Missouri might be fully engaged in our important work.

+ Delegation member Rev. Kim Jenne was able to connect with members of both Mozambique Annual Conferences’ delegations on a recent trip. She conveyed greetings on behalf of the Missouri delegations, presented a letter, and had a very meaningful conversation about General Conference legislation and the hopes and dreams for the future of the United Methodist Church. It is our intention to stay in contact with our siblings from Mozambique, and to share a meal with them in Minneapolis in May.

+ The delegation is anticipating receiving our written material in January 2020. Once we get our copies of the “Advance Daily Christian Advocate” we will know exactly what individual petitions are connected with what larger “plans” you may have read about. There are fourteen legislative committees that initially deal with General Conference petitions, prior to them coming to the larger group during the conference’s second week. That means the General Conference is never talking about a single plan in its entirety. Our system breaks the plans down into smaller petitions based on the paragraph of the Book of Discipline that is impacted. Please keep your Missouri delegates in prayer as we carefully read through the pages of petitions that we will consider in May.

+ The next time the delegation will meet together will be in February, when we will meet in Oklahoma City with other delegations of the South Central Jurisdiction. At that gathering, individual delegations will have the opportunity to interview the endorsed candidates for bishop. There will be opportunities to discuss General Conference legislation, and to connect with other delegates from the various Annual Conferences of our Jurisdiction. 

It is our desire to be as transparent as we can about the work we are doing. This is a significant moment in the life of the United Methodist Church, and it is a privilege to be serving in this capacity at this time. We long to be centered in God’s Spirit, and to be equipped by God’s grace to serve the church to the utmost of our capacity. And we need your prayers in order to do so. Thank you for all the encouragement that has been offered thus far, and as we swing into Spring and get really busy, we’ll be relying on your prayers more and more. 

May God’s grace and peace be with us all. Amen.

Delegation Election Thoughts

Here’s what I think happened in the delegation elections at the Missouri Annual Conference in 2019. (For background, click the lead story of this conference daily journal.)

It was about principles, not labels.

The national UMC Next gathering generated four clear, succinct principles. Written as commitments, these principles provide an unambiguous way for people to self-identify. Labels like conservative, centrist, and liberal can mean different things to different people and at different times. I am conservative in some ways and progressive in others. Does that then make me an aggregate centrist?

Instead of those subjective terms, the Missouri UMC Next group took the four commitments and asked potential delegates if they supported them. People were then able to say, “Yes, I affirm the four principles of the UMC Next movement,” rather than, “I am a centrist” or some other nebulous label.

It made some people mad.

I am truly sorry that some people were upset or angry or disappointed by the lack of theological diversity on the Missouri delegation. And to be honest, in past years I would have shared their disappointment. I am an advocate for a “big table” church in which many different theological perspectives have a voice. But this isn’t “past years;” this is a profoundly significant time in the history of Methodism.

In this season, I am particularly mindful of the voices who for decades have been at best only partly included at the table if not excluded completely. And one of the UMC Next commitments is to “build a church which affirms the full participation of all ages, nations, races, classes, cultures, gender identities, sexual orientations, and abilities.” Actually, that sounds like a pretty big table to me!

It was driven by hope and trust.

At a pre-conference meeting of 225 people or so, hosted by the Missouri UMC Next group, there was a notable buzz in the room. I said to my colleague Lori, “There’s a lot of energy tonight.”

Lori looked at me and without missing a beat said, “It’s hope.”

There was a generally positive, hopeful outlook among those who affirmed the UMC Next principles. The 2019 General Conference had sucked a lot of life out of a lot of people, and here for the first time since February were some tangible ways to respond. That generated a lot of really good hopeful energy.

This hopefulness spilled over in an abundance of trust. The Missouri UMC Next list of suggested delegates would have been nobody’s personal preference from one to twelve.  The names came from a series of regional meetings held all over the state, countless personal conversations, and several flurries of group emails. There was broad participation, as many, many people connected in a variety of ways to pray and talk and discern together.

So yes, people were voting for people they had never actually met before. Nobody knew each and every one of the slate, much less had spoken to each one about how they would serve on the delegation. But here’s what happened - personal preferences were set aside, because if you didn’t know someone on the list, you knew someone who knew them. It was relational and organic, the Methodist connection working like the connection can and maybe should.

It was a small part of a great awakening.

Here in our conference, there has been a reluctance to dialogue about points of disagreement. Sidestepping difficult conversations has generated an ethos that some would describe as unity. I do not see it as unity; I see it as conflict avoidance.

But the church is awake now, in a way it hasn’t been before. It happened all over the country at one annual conference session after another. United Methodists are pretty strongly rejecting the petitions passed at General Conference 2019 and the manner in which they were passed. And while that doesn’t mean we ought to seek out conflict, it very clearly means we will no longer be avoiding it for the sake maintaining a veneer of artificial unity.

There are so many things that are going to happen between now and General Conference 2020, and nobody knows how everything is going to shake out. Bishop Farr said at our Annual Conference session this year, “The United Methodist Church is experiencing an earthquake. But maybe we need to be shaken up.”

However you view this season in the UMC, very few can deny that Easter people are raising their voices all over the place. Hope and trust and grace and love abound! God’s Holy Spirit is alive and on the move!

The church is awake. It is glorious. It is terrifying. It is in God’s hands. All shall be well. Amen.

Thoughts on Jurisdictional Conference 2016 - "Terrifying and Wonderful" - #scj16

My goal was to be coming home from Jurisdictional Conference excited about the future of the church.

I don’t know if “excited” is the word that best fits. I am excited / scared / embarrassed / happy / proud / angry / inspired / hopeful. What’s the word for that emotion? It may be "terrifyingly wonderful," but could also be "wonderfully terrifying." You pick.

So this will be kind of rambly, almost stream of consciousness. But somewhere in what follows will be the beginnings of my thoughts about what happened at the 2016 meeting of the South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church. Here goes...

I’ll start with the Missouri Annual Conference’s new bishop, Bishop Bob Farr. Who, at this time last week, was Missouri’s Director of Congregational Excellence. He is a colleague and a friend to many in Missouri, and now he is our bishop. That dynamic is … unusual.

It is extremely rare for a bishop to be elected and immediately assigned to her or his home conference. It is not forbidden in our rule book, but it is hardly ever done. No one on the Missouri delegation could remember it happening before in our Jurisdiction.

I’m excited about Bishop Farr’s election and assignment for two reasons. First of all, it is an unusual situation, a new and different way to organize, and that’s what Missouri is all about! We are not now, nor we ever have been known for doing the same ol’ same ol’. Bishop Farr’s leadership will be innovative, just by its very nature. And secondly, I am excited that the South Central Jurisdiction has finally managed to elect a bishop who is not from the state of Texas. Not that that’s a huge deal, but it was starting to get kind of monotonous.

Bishop Farr is going to continue to focus on local congregations, and equip, encourage, and allow churches to organize for and engage in ministry that makes sense and bears fruit in the wide variety of diverse contexts around our state. He loves the church with all his heart, and loves Jesus just as much. I am happy and proud to call him my bishop.

With that said, I am embarrassed by the lack of diversity among the bishops of the South Central Jurisdiction. There is only one active bishop who is a woman, for example. Rev. Lynn Dyke would be a phenomenal bishop, and I was working to help her election happen until the moment she removed herself from consideration. Furthermore, Rev. David Wilson is a gifted leader, and would have brought a new perspective to the council of bishops, that of a Native American. Neither was elected.

There are ten bishops in the SCJ, and NINE of them are men, and SEVEN of them are white men. This is embarrassing to me, and not at all reflective of who we are as United Methodists. But it should be noted that across our denomination the other Jurisdictions have done a better job of electing bishops who reflect our diversity, including four African-American women.

With THAT said, the voting in the South Central Jurisdiction was neither sexist nor racist. Those making such claims are making some huge assumptions, often without actually being present during the conference. Both Lynn and David were in the thick of it on many ballots; David received over a hundred votes on one (ballot 24).

I am not naive, so I know that there were some individuals likely voting based on gender and/or race. But anyone who claims the final outcome was blatantly sexist or obviously racist would have a lot of explaining to do to back that assumption up. And based on my experience there, there were a myriad of other factors involved with the decisions the delegates made in selecting bishops.

(Um, isn’t that point a contradiction to the previous one?

Yes. Sure seems like it. Are you still wondering why my reaction is so mixed up?)

Next thing: The politicking made me angry. There’s no other way to say it. It makes me angry when a delegation huddles up, then the next ballot has a large number of votes for a random person who had zero on the previous ballot. Or two delegations get together and then on the next ballot one candidate who was running well has dropped while another one has bumped up. Deals are offered, bargains are struck, delegations “fish” for attractive candidates, heels are dug in. People campaign. And it’s politics. And I did it too. I was a part of it, in the mix. It is what it is, and that doesn’t mean I have to like it. If there’s a better way to do it, I’m all for giving it a try.

Then there was this: A surreal moment happened on Friday night. Simultaneously to the election of Bishop Karen Oliveto, we in the South Central Jurisdiction were debating whether or not to send a request to the Judicial Council of the UMC for a ruling on the election and consecration of people who are gay to be bishops in the United Methodist Church. (FYI, Bishop Oliveto is gay).

It was well rehearsed, planned out in advance, and timed exquisitely. As the petition was read from the floor, slides on screen displayed the text. It was pretty obvious that it had been in the works for a while, to be initiated if it looked like a gay bishop was close to election.

The vote was close, but we voted to go ahead and submit the request. People who believe that sexual orientation is not a hinderance to ordination think that this move is an attack on inclusiveness. People who think being gay disqualifies someone from ordination think this move is simply trying to be obedient to the Book of Discipline. So it goes.

And then, immediately after the vote, my friend and fellow Missouri delegate Andrew Ponder Williams went to the microphone and asked that we stand and pray, specifically for all who had been “hurt by what just happened.” I know exactly what he meant, but the way he worded it, he may have meant hurt by Bishop Oliveto’s election OR hurt by the South Central Jurisdiction’s request. After some urging by Justin Coleman, essentially the entire room came and gathered around Andrew, who was by the way standing two feet in front of me. We connected hands on shoulders, hand in hand, reaching for whoever was closest.

And then Andrew prayed. And it was a remarkable prayer. Sensitive, passionate, grace-filled, loving. The Holy Spirit fell upon Andrew in that moment, and he prayed for us. It was amazing, and I will never forget it.

Rob Renfroe has said that the election of Bishop Oliveto has put us on “the brink of schism.” He was sitting just a few feet on the other side of the microphone from which Andrew was speaking. I am sad to say that I did not notice if he stood up to pray with the rest of the group, but I am assuming that he did. If he did, he was literally three or four people away from Andrew.

Several people have asked me what I think about Bishop Oliveto’s election and assignment to the Mountain Sky Area. I don’t know; I’ve never even met her, much less have any thoughts about her potential effectiveness as a bishop. What I do know is that she is an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church, a member of the California-Nevada Annual Conference, she was nominated for bishop by her Annual Conference, and duly elected bishop by the Western Jurisdiction. I trust that process, and the people involved in it, in their discernment of Bishop Oliveto’s call to be a bishop.

And here is another thing of which I am certain. The gender of the person that Bishop Oliveto happens to love has no impact on the gifts and graces that God has given her to serve in ministry. Nor, by the by, does it have an impact on how we are going to do ministry at Campbell UMC in Springfield. I’m not going to obsess over that aspect of her identity, and I hope you won’t either.

One of the inspiring and hopeful parts of Jurisdictional Conference was meeting and getting to know some really cool people from around the South-Central Jurisdiction. It’s all about relationships, making connections with one another, and I had a lot of opportunities to do just that in Wichita. And by the wonder that is social media, it will be so much easier to remain connected.

I love being a part of a connectional church. I love the frustrating, beautiful, messy diversity that comprises our “big tent” denomination. I still don’t know what’s going to happen. People may leave now that we have a gay bishop. Other people may leave if the Judicial Council comes back and rules her election invalid.

I’m not leaving. I am Methodist, through and through. God has called me to serve in the United Methodist Church in this unsettled, uncertain season. The open table, the way of salvation, knowledge joined with piety, personal and social holiness together, grace upon grace upon grace - Methodism has something beautiful to offer people, and I’m all about offering it.

The Holy Spirit is so obviously at work in the church, in the nation, in the world, creating new expressions of church, deconstructing outdated ways of organizing, reviving old forms and practices in new and creative ways, tossing away old wineskins and providing brand new ones. What a truly terrifying and coincidentally wonderful time to be a part of the United Methodist Church!

Electing Bishops

To the best of my knowledge, here’s how the election and assignment of bishops is going to happen in the South Central Jurisdiction (SCJ)of the United Methodist Church this week. I’ll try to be as clear as I can for those interested. Be warned – this post has a WHOLE BUNCH of very nerdy numbers and abbreviations. (If I get any of this wrong, please someone graciously correct me.)

There are 12 Annual Conferences (ACs) in our Jurisdiction, and every AC has delegates at the SCJ meeting. Not all of the ACs have the same number of delegates; that number is based on the size of the AC. The Texas conference has the most (36). The New Mexico conference and the Oklahoma Indian Missionary conference have the fewest (each have 4). Missouri has 24, the third largest delegation there.

There are 10 Episcopal Areas in the SCJ, because in a couple of places, two ACs are served by one bishop. (Not coincidentally, the ACs that have the fewest delegates are involved in those arrangements.) So we need to have 10 bishops. 3 bishops are retiring or resigning this year, so the SCJ will be electing 3 people to be bishop.

The total number of SCJ delegates is 216. In order for a person to be elected bishop, they must receive the votes of 60% of the voting delegates. 60% of 216 is 129.6, so they’ll need 130 votes.

There are 9 people who have made it known that they would like to be considered in the SCJ. To be clear, every ordained elder in the UMC is eligible for election; there are 9 people who have said publicly, “I would like to be considered.”

And so we will vote using multiple ballots, until one person gets 60% of the vote cast. That person will then be a bishop, and we will vote again and again, until a second person gets 60%. And then repeat that process until a third and final person gets the required 60%. The official agenda lists opportunities for 23 ballots, but there may be more or less, depending on how things go.

In between each ballot, there is prayer and conversation. People visit with one another and discuss candidates, advocate for one or another, pray together, count AC delegation votes, outline voting strategies, and do an awful lot of what can only be called “politics.” Yes, it’s kind of a mess, but with that said, it is a holy mess. And it is our holy mess.

Recap:

- 3 = Bishops to elect

- 9 = People to choose from

- 216 = Total SCJ delegates

- 130 = Votes needed to be elected

At this point, we know who the bishops are, but we still don’t know where they will serve. Once three people are elected, the SCJ Episcopacy Committee meets to assign them to the Episcopal Area they will serve. And here there is another layer of complexity in 2016.

- Bishop Huie is retiring from the Texas AC.

- Bishop Hayes is retiring from Oklahoma / Oklahoma Indian Missionary.

- Bishop Dorff has resigned from Rio Texas.

These three represent the 3 bishops that are to be elected.

HOWEVER, a bishop is only allowed to stay in the same AC for 12 years, and there are 2 bishops in the SCJ who have reached that limit.

- Bishop Schnase will be leaving the Missouri AC.

- Bishop Jones will be leaving Great Plains.

And so that means the Texas, Oklahoma, Rio Texas, Missouri, and Great Plains ACs will be anticipating a new bishop this year.

It is the task of the SCJ Episcopacy Committee to make these assignments.

Every AC delegation has 2 people on the Episcopacy Committee. This year, the Great Plains AC actually as 6 people on the committee, since that one AC was 3 ACs four years ago. Also, I think Rio Texas may have 4 people, since they were 2 ACs four years ago. It is also noteworthy that some members of the Episcopacy Committee are not actually delegates to the SCJ meeting.

For Missouri, our two are Rev. Cody Collier and Brian Hammons, the first clergy elected and the first layperson elected to our delegation, respectively.

Once the committee makes the assignments, they gather the bishops together with their families, and let them know. They then come into the conference hall, literally minutes later, and announce to the delegates where each of the bishops have been assigned.

And then … that’s it. It’s over and we in Missouri begin a new chapter with a new bishop, as well as four other ACs in our SCJ.

But … there’s another wrinkle for Missouri this year. We have 2 people on that list of those who have said officially that they would like to be considered for bishop. Bob Farr and Lynn Dyke may very well be elected bishop, and then the question is where would they be assigned. Consider, it is not forbidden for bishops to be assigned to serve the AC from which they came, but it is very rare.

And then, if either or both were elected bishop, of course their current appointments would need to be filled, which would create more shifts in pastoral leadership in Missouri this fall. Lynn is the Ozarks District Superintendent and Bob is on conference staff as the Director of Congregational Excellence.

And then remember, this is how it shakes out in just ONE of the FIVE jurisdictions of the UMC in the U.S. Similar processes are happening this same week in four other places around the country.

As I go back and reread this post at this point, it is even more complicated than I realized it was! Wow! And if you are one who actually read the whole thing, then God bless you.

But if you skimmed it and just made your way to here … let me make sure to say this:

I think the election of bishops is one of the most important things we do for the sake of the future of the church. I am honored and humbled to be asked by the Missouri Conference to serve in this capacity; thank you for your trust. I promise I will do all I can to help elect bishops who will serve the church with hopefulness, faithfulness, and love.

My goal is to be driving home from Wichita on Saturday excited about the future of the church. Will you please pray this week for me, for the Missouri delegation, for the bishop candidates and their families, for the South Central Jurisdiction, for the United Methodist Church, and for the Church of Jesus Christ around the world?

God, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Amen.

Jurisdictional Delegate Meeting Wrap-Up

The South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church met this week in Oklahoma City for what we called a “Delegate Meeting.” It wasn’t the actual conference, but rather a training event designed to get us prepared for the work ahead. Here is my reflection on the event, for any who may be interested.

+++

We had a chance to meet the candidates for bishop. Alphabetically, with their Annual Conference:

- Bob Farr, from Missouri

- Janice Gilbert, from Texas

- Ron Henderson, from North Texas

- Morris Mathis, from Texas

- Jimmy Nunn, from Northwest Texas

- Ruben Saenz, from Rio Texas

- Erradio Valverde, from Rio Texas

- David Wilson, from Oklahoma Indian Missionary

These are the people who are currently in the mix for election, though there may be more who emerge. I am not 100% certain how many we are electing, but the number I have heard floating around is three.

It was good to see them, to have a face to go with a name (except for Jimmy Nunn who was not present), but we didn’t have much chance to speak with them at this meeting. That will come next Spring when each delegation has a chance to interview each candidate one on one.

+++

A couple of topics of discussion were centered on the global nature of the United Methodist Church:

Bishop Patrick Streiff of the Central and Southern Europe Conference presented some work being done to create a “Global Book of Discipline” that would identify parts of our polity that are universal across the denomination, and parts that could be adapted for particular contexts. They will bring no specific proposals to General Conference, but ask the Conference to affirm the direction their work has taken and continue it for the next four years.

We received information about a related proposal coming to General Conference. This idea would create a “Central Conference” for the United States which would be the equivalent of the seven other Central Conferences around the world. The rationale for this proposal is to create a forum for discussing those issues that are unique to the North American context, in the same way that the other Central Conferences can in their own locales.

I am in favor of both of these ideas, which are aimed at keeping the global identity of United Methodism while at the same time trying to find ways to be more flexible in our mission in various contexts around the world.

+++

A significant rule change is being proposed that would change the way the General Conference talks about all of the petitions that pertain to human sexuality.

The basic idea is to break the entire Conference into small groups of 15 people to discuss the petitions. The small group leaders would then report to a Facilitation Group. The Facilitation Group would then create the petition or petitions that the entire plenary would discuss and vote on.

This would replace the way it is done now, which is to discuss sexuality petitions in a legislative committee (Church and Society 2), who go through the regular committee process and then make their recommendations to the entire body. The thought is that the new idea would allow for every single participant in the Conference to have input into the decisions made on this one issue. It would also be a model for handling any contentious issues that may arise in the future.

Here are some process points: Small group leaders would be nominated from each delegation and selected by the Executive Committee of the Commission on General Conference. The Facilitation Group members are nominated from each Central Conference and US Jurisdiction by the Leadership Discernment Committee of the Council of Bishops. These 24 are then given to the Executive Committee on the Commission on General Conference who propose a slate of six for the entire General Conference to vote on. Conference members may also nominate others from the pool of 24 when the slate is presented.

I applaud the attempt to do something differently around the questions of same-sex marriage and ordination of people regardless of sexual orientation. Clearly the status quo processes are not working. However, it seems to me that there is an awful lot of power in that group of six called the “Facilitation Group.”

While the conflict and controversy may shift away from the legislative committee process, it will not go away altogether. There will be a great deal of scrutiny on the people serving as small group leaders and in the Facilitation Group. That’s where the controversy will reside, if this rule change is approved.

+++

Speaking of homosexuality, there were a couple of specific proposals discussed. Adam Hamilton talked about the Connectional Table proposal, and Chappell Temple talked about a resolution coming from the Texas Conference (I could not find it online).

The Connectional Table proposal lets pastors decide if they will marry couples, and lets Annual Conferences decide what people will be ordained. Adam strongly implied that he would propose an amendment that would let congregations decide what weddings can happen in their buildings.

The Texas proposal completely rewrites paragraph 161f of the Book of Discipline. In their own words they want to do something that “maintains our position but is more gracious in tone.” No longer is the phrase “incompatible with Christian teaching” used to describe homosexuality. In fact, it doesn’t use the word “homosexual” at all. The phrase they use is, “In our historic understanding of the scriptures, sexual relations are to be affirmed only when practiced within the legal and spiritual covenant of a loving and monogamous marriage between one man and one woman.”

It is notable that the petition also calls destructive a list of activities, including “promiscuity, infidelity, bigamy, multiple or serial marriages, pornography, human trafficking, and all attempts to commercialize the gift of human sexuality within our societies.” I do not know if it is intentional or not, but to me it seems to imply that they think same-sex marriage ought to be on this list, even though it is not explicitly stated. (It also seems to strongly condemn divorce, for what that is worth.)

For the record, I am a strong advocate for the amended version of the Connectional Table proposal for local autonomy in these decisions. It seems to be a “no brainer,” in fact. Of course local churches should be able to set their own wedding policies. Of course pastors should have the authority to decide whom they will marry. Of course Annual Conferences should determine which candidates they will ordain. The United Methodist Church’s officially sanctioned obsession with gay people is embarrassing, hateful, and counterproductive to our mission.

+++

We also talked about divestment proposals that are coming to General Conference. Dave Zellner from the General Board on Pension and Health Benefits did a wonderful job of explaining the situation. The essence is social justice; there are many who want the United Methodist Church to pull our investments out (divest) of companies that profit from injustice and from destruction of the environment.

Essentially, he told us that the General Board is deeply committed to social justice and sustainable business practices. They are active in the companies in which we invest, raising awareness and encouraging changes as needed. They invest in community development projects and projects that help those in poverty, making positive social impact.

I’m not really an expert in financial matters, but I trust our General Board here. They are guided by some pretty clear principles and policies, and I’m convinced that telling them specific companies they cannot invest in would not be helpful. They are as transparent as they can be with their investments, and if anyone ever has any concerns, they do indeed listen. But elevating our particular divestment ideas to the level of general church policy is not a good idea.

+++

One of the most astonishing things I learned was the process by which we elect people to serve on the Judicial Council. It is not a good process, to say the least.

The Council of Bishops chooses a slate of candidates that is three times larger than the open positions. The slate is presented to the General Conference one day before the vote, and then we vote on them. That’s it! No time to get to know the people or hear what their ideas are or try to understand if they have the mission of the church as their highest priority or anything like that. It’s just – here they are, pick some.

We have five positions to choose this year, three laity and two clergy. So, we will see the names of nine lay people and six clergy, literally from all over the world, and then in 24 hours we will vote on them. And these are people who will have enormous power in our denomination. They are the “Supreme Court” of Methodism, and their decisions are not reversible without action from the General Conference, which as you know meets only ever four years.

Again this isn’t really my area of expertise, but it seems like a pretty strange way to elect some pretty powerful people.

+++

There was some more stuff, but I think I’ll stop there. If you actually read through all of that, congratulations! You are a Metho-Nerd for sure.

I am honored to serve as a delegate for at Jurisdictional Conference and as first alternate to General Conference. I want to be available to anyone who has questions or concerns or insights, and so I covenant with you to be as transparent as I can.

Please contact me if I can be helpful to you in any way.

Missouri Annual Conference 2015: There Was Grace

The best thing that happened at Annual Conference this year was my reappointment to Campbell United Methodist Church to begin my eighth year as the lead pastor here. I’m so happy to serve as pastor in a congregation that really gets it when it comes to following Jesus. And of course, one that knows how to clap on 2 and 4.

The most important thing I learned at Annual Conference was that knowing someone really well does not in any way mean that you will see something the same way. Some dear friends whom I know really really well see the church camping situation really really differently than I do. Like, befuddlingly differently. And yet they remain dear friends. I think that's probably a function of grace.

The worst thing that happened at Annual Conference was decided by 31 votes (actually 16). We decided, following Robert’s Rules, by a vote of 460 - 429 to NOT sell Wilderness Retreat and Development Center for $1 to an Association  that wants to keep it open and run it as a church camp and retreat center for the foreseeable future. Here’s where we get into the whole “seeing things differently” bit; this is how I see it:

The Missouri Conference owns four camp properties. On Saturday, a majority (by a 667 - 425 vote) decided to go ahead and sell them instead of waiting 2 years. Now, there is a group of committed, faithful United Methodists within the conference who wants to assume responsibility for one of the properties. This subgroup of the Conference asked the body as a whole essentially this question: Okay, so you guys don’t want to own this place any more. Can we have it?

Or as one of our youth members said so graciously from the floor, “I believe we should give the camp sites to the people who want them. And that's all I have to say.”

And that’s where the 31 votes (actually 16) comes in. 429 of us said “YES, let’s compromise here. Neither side thinks this is the best solution, but it would work.” And 460 of us said, “No. We want to sell Wilderness and use the money to fund other ministries.” I keep thinking, if just 16 people of those 460 had wanted to compromise instead of sell, the WRDC Association would be making plans today for opening the camp back up.

(That leads, by the way, to the second most important thing I learned at Annual Conference this year. Following Robert’s Rules of Order is a terrible and graceless way to make decisions in the church.)

I am still hopeful, though. I am hopeful because there’s another Association in our Conference called the Jo-Ota Methodist Association, who are highly organized and skillfully prepared. They asked the Conference if they could buy Jo-Ota for $120,003 (I think - someone correct me if I’m wrong). In seven annual payments, the Jo-Ota Association will pay the Conference $1 year one, $1 year two, $1 year three, and then $30,000 for each of the next 4 years to purchase Camp Jo-Ota. And the Conference said a clear and decisive “YES” to this proposal. We didn’t even have to count votes on that one.

And so now the sale of the Wilderness property will be decided by the Conference Trustees, and I see no reason the Wilderness Foundation could not propose a plan, learning as much as possible from Jo-Ota’s, for the purchase of the Wilderness Retreat and Development Center. It would then be up to the Conference Trustees to decide if they would show grace and offer a compromise, honor the narrowly divided minority voice of the Conference, and perhaps model the “permission-giving” attitude that comprises Chapter Five of the book “Just Say Yes!” by Bishop Robert Schnase.

I truly hope they do. I would love for more and more young people to be able to encounter God’s grace there in that sacred place. You see, I voted to give Wilderness to the Association because I know it’s not about my preference. It’s about the mission of the church to make disciples who are changing the world for God’s sake. The mission happens most effectively when our connection is equipped with the resources necessary to make it possible. And I believe with all my heart that Camping/Retreat facilities in natural settings are some of the most important resources by which our mission happens.

(To my knowledge, there are not similar Associations forming around Camp Galilee or Blue Mountain. That may change, so we’ll just have to see what happens.)

The most exciting thing that happened to me at Annual Conference was my election to serve as a delegate to Jurisdictional Conference and as the first alternate delegate to General Conference. I went to Jurisdictional Conference four years ago and really enjoyed it. This time around, the Jurisdiction will be electing a Bishop who may very well be assigned here in Missouri, so our work will have a bit of added importance.

And I am very eager to be a part of General Conference this year for the first time. As the first alternate, I’ll be a part of the delegation and have a chance to absorb everything that’s happening. Although I won’t sit on the floor, I will be there for the whole event and learn all there is to learn. I’d love to be an actual delegate - maybe sometime in the future. In the meantime, I’ll be there to learn as much as possible about how that gathering works.

The most fun thing that happened to me at Annual Conference was winning the door prize in one of the workshops I attended. I got a Kansas City Royals AL Champion pennant to hang in my office! Woo hoo! Okay, so I didn’t really “win” it; Jen used it for an illustration and she didn’t want to keep it and she knows I love the Royals so she gave it to me. But still.

The most meaningful moment of Annual Conference was helping to lead worship alongside my son Wesley on Sunday morning. As a part of the Memorial Service, he placed a flower on the table as my Grandmother Twila Stowe Bryan was remembered, and I rang the bell in her honor. My wife, my daughter and younger son, my Dad, and my brother were in the congregation right in front of us as we once more celebrated a life that was lived in love and grace.

And finally, my favorite part of Annual Conference, as it is every year, is being together with friends and colleagues in ministry. I am a member of the Conference, not of a congregation. That means the Annual Conference is my church. And it definitely felt that way to me. Hugs, smiles, laughs, handshakes, tears, conversations both deep and trivial, reconnecting with long-time friends and making new ones … I am happy to be in connection with the Missouri Conference of the United Methodist Church.

There are dozens of other experiences I could lift up from #moac15. It was a very good weekend overall.

Two specific moments kind of encapsulate the weekend for me.

On Saturday, after we had voted to sell our camp properties, I embraced my friend Jon Spalding, and we both wept together. Jon is on the Camping Board, among those who was proposing to sell the properties, and my good friend.

On Sunday, after we had voted not to sell Wilderness to the Association, I embraced my friend Bo Tucker, and we both wept together. Bo was on staff at Wilderness, among those who was fighting to save the property, and my good friend.

Both hugs happened in almost the same spot. As I reflect on the weekend, I keep coming back to those two hugs, those two tearful embraces. I haven’t really figured out exactly what they mean, but I know that each one filled my heart to overflowing.

I don’t know for sure, but it may have been grace.

Just Pretend It Isn't There?

Scripture interprets Scripture.

But Book of Discipline apparently does not interpret Book of Discipline.

At 3:20 in this video, Rob Renfroe and Tom Lambrecht discuss how pleased they are that Frank Schaefer was not allowed to use a section of the Book of Discipline to “undermine” another section in the recent United Methodist judicial proceeding against him. (Here’s what I wrote previously about this case.)

A judicial ruling that prohibits someone from using the Book of Discipline to “undermine” itself is really all you need in order to perfectly encapsulate how screwed up our denomination is.

The fact that we have a Book of Discipline that actually could be used to undermine itself is a sign of the messiness of our processes. I for one love this mess; it is holy, and we call it “conferencing.” I think we do holy conferencing pretty well, actually. I saw it at work in the South Central Jurisdiction during our most recent meeting, with regard to Bishop Bledsoe. Messy, tense, yet filled with grace and respect. No, the mess is not where the problem lies.

The problem arises when you try to impose “by the book” thinking on a “holy conferencing” system. One is neat and tidy, either/or, cut and dried. The other is the aforementioned holy messiness that we know as the conference. We really need to make a choice here; it needs to be one or the other. How serious are we about upholding our commitment to conferencing? If it truly is a part of our Methodist identity, then why in the world would we prohibit discussion of the entire Book of Discipline in a disciplinary setting?

I do not know what specific part of the Book of Discipline Schaefer wanted to use in his defense. My facts are limited to the video I saw. But it doesn’t matter with regard to my larger question in this instance.

The Bible contradicts itself all over the place. Like women don’t speak in church but in Christ there is neither male nor female, for example. How do we followers of Jesus deal with these contradictions? We talk about them. We discuss, we think, we pray, we conference.

Yes, the Bible and the Book of Discipline are two very different things, I get that. But the principle is the same. I would never dream of ignoring parts of the Bible just because they happened to “undermine” another part. Instead I wrestle with it until it begins to make sense to me, and I do so in relationship and conversation with others.

I suppose I just find it incredibly disheartening that we can’t do the same with the Discipline, especially when that is exactly what we are supposed to do as Methodists. We’re not a “by the book” church. We are a concentric set of conferences – charge, district, annual, jurisdictional, general – built on relationships and dialogue, not hierarchy and dogma.

The message of this ruling is clear. Don’t bother looking in the Book of Discipline for anything that might contradict the “Don’t marry gay people” policy. Nothing along the lines of, oh say for example…

“Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation. We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting the rightful claims where people have shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such lawful claims typically attendant to contractual relationships that involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection before the law.” (Paragraph 162.J)

And you’re definitely not allowed to ponder how in the world we can make a claim like this and at the very same time forbid our pastors to marry same sex couples in states where it is legal. That would be “undermining,” you see, and get all messy. We just can’t have that.

It Was a Holy Mess - Jurisdictional Conference Reflections

It was a holy mess.

(That’s the best I can do at 11:40 p.m. on the Friday of Jurisdictional Conference. A holy mess.)

It was a holy time; but it sure was a mess.

It was a messy time; but it was indeed holy.

And in saying that, I am not offering criticism. I left Jurisdictional Conference very proud to be United Methodist. Not because it wasn’t a mess; but rather because of the way we worked in and through the messiness together.

The primary purpose for the Jurisdictional Conference is to elect and appoint bishops. To be elected, a bishop must receive 60% of the votes. There were three bishops needed in our Jurisdiction, and ten people who were endorsed candidates. That meant we had to vote 23 times before getting our three new bishops.

In between each of these votes were opportunities to “caucus” within our Missouri delegation, as well as speak with others if we wished. Now, I’m not naïve. I know that political maneuvering happens in systems such as our beloved United Methodist Church. But it felt weird to me, even to have the word “caucus” spoken in relation to an activity of the church. I think the crux of the matter is, there were too many secrets for a group that is supposed to believe the truth will set us free.

In the course of these conversations, I learned that there was a conference who really wanted one particular candidate for their bishop. They thought he was just the right person to lead this conference in shifting their priorities and helping them think and organize missionally. I think he would have done very well and was voting for him so that he might be sent there.

Of course, I understand that it doesn’t really work that way; the assignments are made by the Episcopacy Committee after the elections. But I kept voting for him because I knew that this conference really wanted him, and I was voting on their behalf. I was trying to vote missionally rather than politically, if that makes sense.

Problem was, they were too small a delegation to have any impact on the elections. Even voting together in a bloc their collective voice was hardly more than a whisper on the floor of the conference. Stated bluntly, the bigger conferences organize efficiently and end up getting exactly what they want. Again, that’s not a criticism; that’s simply how it works.

However, the end result of the elections and assignments is actually really good. From what I know of the three new bishops and the three areas to which they have been assigned, some really good things are going to be happening in the UMC in our jurisdiction over the next few years. Cynthia Harvey, Gary Mueller, and Mike McKee are gifted leaders and creative visionaries, and the denomination is a better place with the three of them in episcopal roles.

And that smaller conference who really wanted that particular person for bishop? It turns out that they haven’t been assigned a bishop at this point (more on that later), instead they will receive two retired bishops to serve on an interim basis, leaving open the possibility that they may receive the person of their choice anyway, although the process by which that may or may not happen is in no way clear at this time.

Another thing I noticed: In between votes there were reports given from various groups within the Jurisdiction. Now, at Annual Conference these reports are times of celebration and support. At Jurisdictional Conference they felt kind of like time fillers. There were times I felt really bad for the people giving reports, because it seemed like hardly anyone in the room was truly paying attention to them, let alone celebrating and supporting.

And then there was the whole set of circumstances around the involuntary retirement of Bishop Earl Bledsoe of the North Texas Conference. (Back  story) While there are many perspectives and opinions being expressed and I encourage you to read and understand all of them, no single perspective can see the whole story. All I can offer is what I saw.

I saw a Jurisdictional Conference holding a bishop accountable for ineffective administrative leadership.

It was intense. I cannot adequately describe the emotion of the room as the process unfolded. Don House, the chair of the Jurisdictional Episcopacy Committee, and Bishop Robert Hayes, who presided over the session at which the vote was taken, handled the situation with dignity and grace, and projected a calm and solemn attitude that was appropriate to the significance of the moment.

Two members of the Jurisdictional Episcopacy Committee are from Missouri, and were involved in the lengthy hearings at that level. Rev. Cody Collier and Larry Fagan are to be highly commended for their faithfulness and diligence, and both were obviously drained by the experience, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. My admiration and respect for each of these men has grown exponentially.

I do not believe this was a racist attempt to oust a black bishop in favor of a white one. Nor do I believe this is an example of the “good ol boy network” trying to shelter one of their own from further repercussions. These are two examples of opinions I have read that I simply cannot agree with. They just do not align with the way I experienced this process.

No, the delegates to the conference who are not on the committee are not privy to all of the details. Some see this as a "cover-up." I see it as entrusting a group of colleagues with work that is best left to a smaller group to do. Knowing personally and trusting deeply two of the Episcopacy Committee members and hearing their summary and recommendation is enough for me.

As a denomination, we have wondered together about accountability. There has been renewed emphasis on accountability for pastors, and parallel to that, questions about how to hold bishops accountable, also. This is what we saw at Jurisdictional Conference last week: a process by which bishops can be held accountable for ineffective administrative leadership.

It started when the North Texas Conference Episcopacy Committee expressed their desire that Bishop Bledsoe not be re-assigned to North Texas. That would be similar to a local congregation’s Church Council (or Staff/Parish Relations Committee) letting their pastor know that they would like a change in appointment. That’s when Bishop Bledsoe announced he would retire. And then he reversed course and decided to remain an active bishop. The matter then moved to the next level of our system, the Jurisdiction.

The Jurisdictional Committee on the Episcopacy worked diligently and faithfully to study the situation and discern the best way to resolve it. They heard from multiple sources, they spent many hours with Bishop Bledsoe himself, they prayed for wisdom and guidance, and they came to a recommendation they considered to be the most gracious and just resolution. They brought that recommendation to the entire Conference, we heard from Bishop Bledsoe himself, we considered it and prayed over it, and voted to affirm their recommendation.

And that’s what happened.

As of September 1, Bishop Bledsoe will be a retired bishop. If he decides to appeal the decision to the United Methodist Judicial Council (like our denominational Supreme Court), he will remain in retired status as the process is advancing. As I mentioned before, one of our Annual Conferences is being served by two retired bishops, on an interim basis. Some news articles are reporting that he will be an active bishop as the appeal is happening; that is not my understanding of the situation.

In his remarks, Bishop Bledsoe said that there is a process in place by which a complaint against a bishop can be brought, addressed, and resolved. He implied a preference for this process rather than the one that unfolded. He has a point. That is indeed one of the processes that might have played out here. The end result of that process, if the complaint is justified, can be harsh, including the removal of clergy credentials.

The process that was followed comes from paragraph 408.3 of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which allows a Jurisdictional Episcopacy Committee to place a bishop in retired relationship by 2/3 vote if it is “in the best interests of the bishop and/or the church.” The process was fair, gracious, and just.

It was messy; it was holy.

It was messy because accountability is hard sometimes, especially when it is a beloved bishop being held accountable. It was holy because the mission of God for the church was always at the forefront of the conversation, and all that was done was done with grace and love.

So that’s what I’m going with, still - a holy mess. A messy holiness? We are in the world, and not of it. We are both already and not yet. We are sinners forgiven. We are a bunch of screwed up people trying to do the best we can to realize the reign of God on earth.

We are the church. We are the United Methodist portion of the Church, specifically. And we do things well together. It is rarely easy. It is often messy. And by the grace of God, it is holy.