Language Barriers

“Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’;
anything more than this comes from the evil one.”
Matthew 5:37, NRSV

Language, or more specifically the words, used to convey meaning are inadequate. At the same time, human communication is bound, in part, to expression with words and their associated meanings. Clarity of meaning and verbal expression is compounded by the myriad languages spoken around the globe. Nonetheless, the General Conference of The United Methodist Church insisted upon perfecting language to express its actions when voting on motions and petitions.

The 2008 General Conference changed its wording from “concurrence” or “nonconcurrence” to “adopt” or “reject”. Then, yesterday from the floor, a delegate appealed to the Conference to refrain from using the word “defeat” when referring to the outcome of voting that rejects a motion. The delegate’s rationale is that words like “defeat” imply a victory for some. As Christians, the delegate admonished, we are all victorious in Christ; there are no losers.

It seems that whether a motion, petition, recommendation or action of General Conference is rejected or defeated, the words are infused with negativity and imply one side adopted or victorious over the other. Couple this with more than eight languages other than English in translation at the Conference and it seems ridiculous to expect any clear understanding of certain words conveying negative or positive meaning. Even though the superseded words “concurrence” and “nonconcurrence” are perceived to be confusing and cumbersome, they seem to be words less infused with energy around winners and losers, at least in English.

Perhaps the General Conference could simply agree, disagree or agree to disagree in the spirit of holy conferencing and basic human interaction founded upon the love of God for all. Maybe a direct “yes” or “no” would suffice.

Cell Phone Lobbyists

“I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep an eye on those who cause

dissensions and offenses, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned;

avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites.”
Romans 16:17-18a, NRSV

How could one possibly think that giving cell phones to some delegates levels the playing field or smells of anything other than impropriety? Some argue that these gifts give certain delegates—specifically those from Africa—the same access to communication technology as other delegates. Others say the gifts are being used to influence the voting of these central conference delegates. While The United Methodist Church is not immune to lobbyist activity during its General Conference, one would expect the principles of holy conferencing and down-right decency to trump buying votes or showing favoritism to some over others.

Rather than stepping up to the plate of being above reproach, the givers of these gifts have defiled and denigrated the legislative process. Even if these gifts were just gifts, why were they given only to certain delegates? Surely there are other delegates (U.S. and central conferences) who do not have or did not bring cell phones. That these “gifts” raise questions at all is in itself enough evidence to support the fact that their giving was inappropriate and the givers intentions questionable at best.

The church deserves much better than this, and God certainly demands more.

A Future with Hope

“For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord,
plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope.”
Jeremiah 29:11, NRSV

The 2008 General Conference of The United Methodist Church has opened officially. Its theme is “A Future with Hope” based upon Jeremiah 29:11. The question the delegates must answer is “What is the future of The United Methodist Church”? No doubt, they will hope for the best and leave the rest to God. But is that enough to right the course of an institution that is prone to elitism, selfishness, egotism, turf wars and complacency that engenders dis-ease, impoverishes the denomination, lacks principled leaders and hinders church growth? It is the institution itself—namely the cumbersome 13 general boards and agencies—that stands in the way of any hope of a vital future.

Jeremiah 29:11 is as much a promise as a warning to those wishing to return to business as usual. Just like the Israelites who longed for life before exile but could have no hope of returning, the people of The United Methodist Church—through its representative delegates to General Conference—must make plain the vision of tomorrow instead of fanning the flames of yesterday. If there is to be a future with hope for the people of The United Methodist Church, it must start with dismantling the unwieldy craziness of a church structure that has long outlived its usefulness.

That’s a future worth hoping for.