by Bob Phillips

Wait a minute. Which General Conference is the subject of this piece? The short answer is, “both.” The UMC April/May gathering, and the GMC September huddle share more similar challenges and promise that either side easily acknowledges. Neither church will be decisively made or broken by their event, but the potential to fly or flop are real.

Consider common challenges. The first is trust. The “Call to Action” all-church study in the 2010 timeframe identified a pervasive and systemic problem with trust deficits that riddle the UMC, clergy and laity alike. Consider the policy that General Conference delegates need not share how they vote with the annual conference that sent them, that they have no obligation to support any resolution flowing from their home conference to GC24, even if passed by an overwhelming vote.

Recently a GC delegate (honestly) informed his annual conference Facebook site that a resolution for GC that passed by a 2-1 margin was one that neither he nor most of his conference delegates would vote to pass. This came as a shock to numerous clergy and laity, liberal and conservative, who were unaware that annual conference conscience is temporarily outsourced to the delegates by the existing process. Current GMC guidance for elected delegates is evolving but a real possibility exists that trust unintentionally can be wounded, depending on the process developed.

A simple response could be the public pledge for transparency in reporting the issues and accountability for delegate voting offered daily back to the conference that sent them. A wrap-up evening report on how delegates dealt with or voted pro or con on key issues would keep the process in the daylight where trust can take root. The failing status quo, where even asking a delegate how he/she voted is viewed as an insult to that delegate’s integrity, must change. Both GC24 gatherings need to think hard about how trust can be nurtured, rejecting the temptation to confuse delegate official status with vital trust.

The second challenge is effectiveness. Again, the Call-to-Action report highlighted the widespread tendency for the UMC to prize personality or efficiency over measurable effectiveness. Consistent measurable mediocre outcomes in local church and leadership/board/agency settings became no barrier to promotion. As a delegate to GC2016 (my first trip), I drew on numerous previous memories as a member of Navy selection boards, selecting the “best qualified” officers for promotion to captain and commander, above others who were qualified or “fully qualified.” Metrics matter in such decisions.

In that spirit, I crunched the career numbers of bishop candidates, especially related to what happened to attendance at churches they served. I realized that in nearly every case fine and well-intentioned clergy with no sustained record of growing churches were being selected to lead conferences into something the individuals had never or seldom actually done, i.e., grow churches. The Call-to-Action recommendation that the denomination stop promoting based on good intentions and start promoting based on measurable effectiveness was largely disregarded.

Both the GMC and the UMC can address this misfire by identifying metrics of effectiveness in the recruitment, training, nurture, deployment, and promotion of clergy. Standards and assumptions common in high school student council elections need to stay in high school. Major program or denomination-wide emphases can no longer be comparable to passing resolutions endorsing time travel or opposing bed-wetting. Fair, clear and relevant metrics of effectiveness and/or success are the way to a healthier future for all. This applies also to programs adopted and initiatives affirmed. If it can’t be measured, it doesn’t matter.

The third is focus. Secular, proven organizational theory is clear. An institution that sets 1-2 “wildly important goals” (or ‘WIGs’ as used in the Covey organization), has a good chance of accomplishing both. A WIG is defined as an organizational goal so important that if it is not achieved, anything else the organization does achieve is no big deal. The passion, energy and resources of the organization mobilize to achieving the WIGs. All else may be nice, even important, but cannot save the institution from a slow roll or a fast trot toward irrelevance or death. Setting 3 goals risks incompletion. More than 3 goals likely result in 0 achieved.

I will pass no judgement on what some lobbying groups in the UMC are setting as their most important priorities but applaud them for thinking in terms of priorities. The GMC first GC does have a bundle of systemic must-decide items, such as approving a Book of Doctrines and Discipline. Both groups are well advised to sort the vital wheat from the important but not vital chaff, focused on the end and ultimate goal of glorifying God through multiplying disciples of Jesus. Wise application of focused effort can set the stage for refreshing and obvious forward movement by both denominations.

Consider also the potholes that both the UMC and GMC face. One is denial and its ugly cousin of confirmation bias. Whereas the Presbyterian and Episcopal denominations experienced a 10%-member departure in recent divisions, the UM division of 25% or more from the US church became the largest such division of a US denomination in 180 years. No one expected this. The UM GC24 can reflect confirmation bias (the inability of leadership or delegates to articulate with accuracy and empathy what happened and why) and guarantee a hobbled future fueled by reaction rather than creative initiative. There are a hundred ways to put out a fire…denying its existence is not one of them.

The GMC faces similar dynamics from a separate reality. A clear majority of disaffiliated GMC churches struggle with spiritual health and numbers that reflect ageing congregations ranging from numerical flatline to free fall, despite orthodox Wesleyan beliefs. Vital new church plants will require a level of focus and support that most GMC churches have never witnessed. The temptation will be real to spend too much spiritual capital on joy and relief that the GMC is no longer “as others” and substitute well-meaning bumper sticker theology for the gritty confrontation with misfires that affect the GMC as much as the legacy UMC. The willingness to name, claim and implement profound change at all levels can open the door to spiritually revived churches. Changing a church name is not enough.

A second temptation will be the lure of making major decisions based on the “rebound.” Many know of family and friends who, on leaving an unhealthy relationship, fall too quickly into a rebound marriage. They seek comfort in one who may not have the obvious flaws of the prior dysfunctional or abusive partner. They also can overlook or rationalize away fresh barrels of goo the new partner brings, creating fresh adversity.

It is crucial for the GMC to recognize and name what the UMC does that is good, or healthy, or biblical, or sensible and to integrate such wisdom into its future. It is vital for the UMC to name clearly what strengths and insights to GMC is developing and what the departed traditionalists brought to the table that remain key to a spiritually healthy UMC future.

Final Thought

In June, 2018, I wrote a piece posted in the Chris Ritter blog, People Need Jesus, entitled, “Why General Conference 2019 WILL Fail and CAN succeed.” Events have shown it to be hopefully and painfully true. The article concluded:

“The 2019GC will fail. It cannot make the church whole, nor resolve the conflict by authority or by contrived collaboration. The 2019GC can succeed. The commitment to renew one expression of the denomination while midwifing the birth of a parallel expression of Methodism consistent with the conscience and vision of alternative perspectives can happen. Only then can the larger challenges and opportunities of the heirs of Wesley be engaged without distraction. That is a true ‘way forward.’”

The main danger to both is expecting what cannot be delivered. GC2019 was doomed to fail as the forum to provide “the” answer to the sexuality conflict. Those opposed to existing teaching had set a precedent of disobedience (rooted in their conscience) that was shared by numerous bishops. This guaranteed any GC2019 outcome that was not agreeable to portions of the church would not be obeyed, rendering any GC decision as selectively relevant. Those favoring existing teaching looked unrealistically at a legislative body to somehow enforce what is unenforceable where conscience is concerned.

In that spirit, both GC2024 must set necessary but realistic goals and expectations. Organizations seek to handle conflict in three ways. One is by use of authority, an approach rendered morally dubious by the selective obedience to authority now firmly embraced as UMC precedent. A second approach is conflict, which is the denomination’ and its leaders default position, with 7,700+ churches departing and a 42% drop in funding projected for the UMC through 2028. Gracious collaboration, embodied in the words and spirit of the Protocol, remains a viable and redemptive third way, in revised and realistic form. Fallen human nature prefers combat and competition. May both the GMC and UMC move with “grace and reconciliation” toward win-win outcomes. Such would astonish the world, astound the media, and (speaking in strict theological terms) anger the Hell out of Satan.

Bob Phillips

Degrees from University of Illinois, Asbury and Princeton Seminaries, University of St. Andrews

Graduate of Senior Executive Seminar on Morality, Ethics and Public Policy, Brookings Institution

Captain, Chaplain Corps, US Navy (ret)

See Bob’s work on Methodist Mitosis in Methodist Review.

Photo Credit