what bugs me about this? : general conference blog reflection & challenge

so i've been doing a lot of general conference blog reading. mostly cause i have to keep up with the methoblog while jay is out of town. one blog added to the mix was/is the ird's blog for conference. they've got some folks who are teaming up to post, so ideas and topics cover a wide range. this is the most recent posting and it doesn't ring right with me.

On the Sunday before General Conference, my pastor mentioned the Conference in the morning announcements. He added his hope that the “special interests” that have besieged past General Conferences would be set aside along with divisive issues like abortion, human sexuality, the environment, and immigration. Indeed the Rev. Tom Berlin, the lead clergy delegate for Virginia, mentioned the same hope in a commentary for UM News Service. “The curtain may be rising on a new act in our story as a Christian movement—unless forces of the past conspire to jam it shut.”

Sadly, the hope expressed by my pastor and Rev. Berlin have not been exhibited at this General Conference. There is little agreement on social issues like human sexuality, abortion or the war in Iraq. Each day there are anti-war protests, pro-homosexuality demonstrations, immigration reform rallies, one anti-Bush Library protester, and over a dozen daily leaflets available from various caucus groups. 

There is little theological agreement either. On a quick walk through the official UMC bookstore, Cokesbury, one can find monographs by radical Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong, Jesus Seminar author Marcus Borg, and “dissenting” United Methodist Bishop Joseph Sprague. One can also find a few evangelical authors like orthodox Oxford don Alistair McGrath, Jesus Seminar critic and New Testament scholar N.T. Wright, and Mere Christianity’s C.S. Lewis. And there are those from the so-called “extreme center” like UM Bishop Scott Jones (who, by the way, has a curious habit of avoiding taking all leaflets offered to GC delegates and visitors each morning—as a former professor, perhaps he’s already read enough).

my thought.. "hi pot, meet kettle" is it odd that someone as a voice for the ird is calling others divisive? i'm on the mailing list, i read your newsletters and emails. their stuff is divisive. sure it covers itself in saving the conservative values of the church.. whatever that means.. does that make you more righteous? thus right? if you actually think that then you are much too proud to see your lack of humility.

also, how do so many people come  together and not have disagreement? that is unrealistic to expect that. i read borg and nt wright.. so am i in your good graces one day and not the other?

the ird folks do have a collection of some of the slamming cartoons that people have done of them. that's a pretty funny post.

other than that, i encourage all at gc get a pic of the bush library protester. we will make a full photo post of submitted pics with the lone protester at the methoblog. why? because i think that would be funny.

Comments

[Stephen]

Gavin,

When are you going to realize that divisive means believing anything "I" don't believe! :)

Pax.

[Dave in Dallas]

What I see divisive is that we essentially have at least 2 churches, maybe 3, inside of the UMC itself.
Further, we are arguing over what we believe. Uhmm... doesn't that strike everyone as bit awkward that we're a 200+ yr old institution, with a heritage that goes back 2000 yrs and we still don't know what we believe.
It seems like we have spent at least the last 8 years fighting about what we believe is right. It like "duh" no wonder we're shrinking. People want to be part of something bigger than themselves, something with a mission, and a message.
Without a clear message and set of beliefs we are like a kindergarten class without a teacher.

[Wayne]

Gavin,
Since you've been following the conference, I wonder who tried to abuse the rule about distribution of materials on the floor of the conference. Was it one group or was everyone equally guilty?

[gavin]

hey all,

on monday morning a gold colored sheet of paper was left on all the delegates tables. on the sheet were names to be considered for electing. from what i understand, it was from some moderate group, so it had people supported by both political sides.

from what i was told, a number of those folks did get elected. whether it was because of the sheet is hard to say. being a moderate caucus it is hard to say that any other caucus group will not be totally happy but claim small victories.

outside the main hall it is apparently a free game in distributing materials.

dave, i'd agree we do have more than one ideology. not sure i'd go and say we have more than one church. but i guess that depends on how we define church. it is kinda funny how we seem to have so much energy focus on the arguments of the last 8-12 years in our church. but as a umc, we are not more than 40 years old, so that is a pretty good percentage of our own faith expression.

is that what i means stephen? &:~D

[Edwin]

Well, the Christian Church as a whole is 10 times as old as Methodism, and Christians as a whole are still fighting about what we believe! I actually think it's a good thing (though unpleasant) that Methodists are fighting about what they believe. As a sympathetic sort-of outsider (my family's background is Methodist/Holiness, my parents joined the UMC a few years ago, my wife is Methodist, and we both attend a Methodist church as well as an Episcopal church, but my membership is in the Episcopal Church), my biggest concern about United Methodists in the past has been that they didn't seem to think doctrine was important enough to fight about. On the whole, I'm glad that is changing, though I would certainly not like to see Methodists become altogether like Baptists or Calvinists or even Roman Catholics in this regard!

Edwin

[gavin]

good points edwin, i'd say our not caring was a trend of our own sort of reforming of our own revival movement. we forgot a lot of what we are all about and what makes us distinct. we will get back there. i'm sure of that