Thoughts on #UMCGC and Christian Conferencing (Part 2)

16 Tuesday Feb 2016

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Uncategorized, Wesley

Tags

In my previous post, I discussed my concern with the imprecise use of Christian conferencing in the Advance Daily Christian Advocate and the push to reclaim Christian conferencing at the General Conference level. Recent reporting on Christian conferencing leaves me with the impression that the discussion around Christian conferencing has taken a significant step back over the past year. These two UMNS articles [1] [2] have very different understandings of Christian conferencing. Curiously, there is no indication of an awareness of tension between the two or commentary on the shift.

More broadly, I’m not sure United Methodism is currently operating with a collective understanding of either grace or the means of grace that is sufficiently robust. If we aren’t clear about either of these, we cannot hope to be clear about what concrete expressions of means of grace like Christian conferencing ought to look like. Richard P. Heitzenrater’s “The Exercise of the Presence of God: Holy Conferencing as a Means of Grace” is a helpful starting point for a Wesleyan understanding of grace, means of grace, as well as parsing “holy conferencing” and “Christian conferencing.”

While I am discouraged by the recent direction that the discussion of Christian conferencing seems to have taken, particularly as seen in the Advance DCA, I continue to be eager to see The United Methodist Church return to an authentic retrieval of Christian conferencing. So, how can we do a better job of articulating what Christian conferencing is? And where are the best places to work toward a return to this practice?

Andrew C. Thompson’s recent book The Means of Grace offers a substantive and accessible introduction to the means of grace in general, as well as to Christian conferencing more specifically. In his chapter on Christian conferencing, Thompson points out that “fellowship” and “Christian conferencing” are synonyms in Wesley’s writing. For Thompson, “There’s a deeply spiritual component to fellowship, in Wesley’s mind, that makes it centrally about the work of transformation…. Christian believers were gathered together with their hearts open to the work of the Holy Spirit and with a desire to receive God’s grace” (90). Considering the way that conferencing is used in Wesley’s writing, Thompson writes, “Christian conference… is about believers coming together to focus on their faith: to pray, to share their experience of God, to seek advice and to offer counsel, and even to confess their sins and ask for forgiveness” (90).

The recent work of Methodist historians like Heitzenrater and Thompson provides a good foundation for working toward a coherent collective understanding of Christian conferencing at the General Conference and Annual Conference level. Again, because of the current lack of clarity and precision in defining Christian conferencing, the best approach is to focus on teaching on this practice at General Conference and Annual Conference, not implementation. In our current moment, attempting to go straight into practice at General Conference is premature, will most likely waste time, and comes across as trying to manage or control the conversation to people from nearly every perspective.

The best place to begin working toward reclaiming Christian conferencing would be at the district level where you could offer workshops and training. The key place of implementation is the local church, where ongoing relationships are present. Among Methodist historians, there has been a general consensus that the class meeting is one of the best concrete examples of what Wesley had in mind by Christian conferencing being an instituted means of grace.

I have been encouraged by the momentum I have seen building for a retrieval of a contemporary expression of the class meeting. This past Sunday, it was announced at the church I attend that 150 people had signed up to join a new small group ministry that is an intentional reclaiming of the class meeting (and 85 people have already been actively involved in similar groups). This is only one example of the broader interest I am seeing in not just talking about transformation-driven small groups, but in experiencing them. A return to something like the class meeting is something laity are ready for and are responding to in contemporary Methodism. The time seems to be ripe for a deeper engagement with not only Christian conferencing as an instituted means of grace, but also the class meeting and the band meeting as prudential means of grace for “the people called Methodists.”

The specificity of the class meeting as an example of Christian conferencing is helpful for a host of reasons. First, Christian conferencing is a means of grace for everyone, not just General Conference delegates. The primary emphasis for reclaiming this practice needs to be at the local church level and not the General Conference to be sure that all are invited into a practice that is at the core of what it means to be a Methodist.

Second, the class meeting’s focus was answering the question: “How does your soul prosper?” This question reminds us that the key focus of Christian conferencing in early Methodism was on God and peoples’ experience with God, or their search for a deeper experience with God’s presence and power in their lives.

Third, the class meeting was a small group that was intended to meet together for the long haul, not a few times over a couple of weeks. Christian conferencing can occur in isolated meetings, but I do not think that should be seen as the normal experience of Christian conferencing. Christian conferencing is most likely to occur in the context of ongoing community.

One of the reasons I find this to be a difficult topic is because Christian conferencing can occur in a variety of contexts. In thinking about Christian conferencing more over the past few weeks, I’ve realized that I have to say that it is theoretically possible for Christian conferencing to happen at General Conference. It cannot be defined restrictively as a particular type of small group meeting. And yet, I am as convinced as ever that it is foolish to have General Conference be the primary point of emphasis, or the starting point for reclaiming Christian conferencing, in our current moment. Based on the past several General Conferences, we simply do not have good reason to think that genuine Christian conferencing is likely to happen in Portland.

Christian conferencing is a precious part of our heritage as Methodists. It is too important to trivialize or gut of its power as a means of God’s transforming grace. It is not everything that happens at General Conference, as has been suggested by conversations around the pre-General Conference meetings in January. In a time when United Methodism is desperate for renewal, we should absolutely look to our past for guidance. We should struggle to discern where God has been at work in the past in hopes of being renewed in the present. I am all for retrieving Christian conferencing. In fact, my recent book The Class Meeting is an attempt to provide a practical resource for retrieving the most basic aspect of this practice within the local church.

My worry is that we are currently on a course that will disillusion the key leaders of our church with the value of one of our most basic practices. Recent appeals to this practice have not resulted in what I would consider to be Christian conferencing. Instead, there seems to be a persistent tendency to (mis)use Christian conferencing as a way of sanctifying decisions after they have been made that is self-justifying.

To be clear on where I come down on Rule 44: I do not think Rule 44 represents a faithful expression of Christian conferencing. I do not believe Rule 44 would facilitate Christian conferencing.

If we continue in the directions suggested by the Advance DCA, I fear that those who would be most poised to advocate for churches to return to the authentic practice of Christian conferencing will come to have a very negative connotation associated with the phrase. Many already do. The consequence could well be that our key leaders become apathetic to Christian conferencing entirely. Even worse, they might actively oppose attempts to reclaim Christian conferencing based on negative experiences at General Conference that were not actual experiences of the practice.

Much is at stake for the ongoing vitality and coherence of Methodism. May God grant us wisdom and discernment as we continue to work towards reclaiming a practice that is essential for authentic Methodist identity and practice.

Kevin M. Watson is Assistant Professor of Wesleyan and Methodist Studies at Candler School of Theology, Emory University. You can keep up with this blog on twitter @kevinwatson or on facebook at Vital Piety.

Thoughts on #UMCGC and Christian Conferencing (Part 1)

10 Wednesday Feb 2016

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Wesley

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

Christian conferencing, Methodism

I was invited by the Committee on Faith and Order to speak to the Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church on “holy conferencing” at its November, 2014 meeting in Oklahoma City. The invitation was very encouraging to me, particularly because the working documents that Faith and Order shared with me on their work on the topic were quite strong. I had previously expressed concerns about misuses of the term holy conferencing, where one of only five instituted means of grace in the Wesleyan view had been distorted so that it had become little more than trying to be nice to each other when we disagree. In contrast to previous misuses of the phrase, Faith and Order was working on an account that was more theologically substantive and engaged more robust practices. As I recall, nearly every document they shared with me identified the early Methodist class meeting and band meeting as the most concrete expression of Christian conferencing in early Methodism.

I went to the Council of Bishops meeting with a real sense of optimism. I felt that I was being given the chance to build on this positive momentum and encourage the leadership of United Methodism to reclaim an authentically Wesleyan approach to Christian communal formation. In this spirit, I began my presentation by asking the bishops to consider what would be “one thing that United Methodism could do today that would be most likely to bring deep renewal and an outpouring of the Holy Spirit to our church?” My answer was “reclaiming an accurate understanding of holy conferencing in contemporary United Methodism.” But I was quick to add, “everything hinges on getting right what holy conferencing is.”

My basic advice was for there to be preaching and teaching on the concept of Christian conferencing at the General Conference and Annual Conference levels. I suggested that the most productive place to seek to return to this practice would be at the district level and especially the local church. (You can read the manuscript I used in my presentation here.)

I don’t think reclaiming the practice of Christian conferencing should start at the General Conference level because it is asking people to do something that most of them have never done with people they do not know. I don’t think you can take it for granted that people know what Christian conferencing is in contemporary United Methodism. General Conference is not the wisest place to implement Christian conferencing. Rather, it is a prime opportunity to teach people what it is so that they can begin working towards a return to it on the ground at the local church level.

As I read reports of the pre-General Conference meeting in Portland last month, I was initially encouraged to see that the Commission on General Conference featured Christian conferencing prominently in its work. The shift away from “holy conferencing” to “Christian conferencing” is a positive move. The desire to lift this practice up at General Conference is also laudable. However, the more I read about the use of Christian conferencing in the Advance DCA, as well as reporting on it by UMNS and other places, the more I fear that we are in for another General Conference that reinforces the distortions of one of the most distinctive practices of the Methodist heritage.

The Advance Daily Christian Advocate contains guidelines for Christian conferencing, especially with “A Few Sentences on Christian Conferencing” on page 22. There are also several places where there is a proposed language change from “Conference business” to “Christian conferencing”. Perhaps most significant is “Rule 44,” a proposed rule change to the “Rules of Order” that would allow for a group discernment process instead of the usual parliamentary procedure, which observes Robert’s Rules of Order.

In reading through the references to Christian conferencing in the ADCA, my impression is that this phrase is being used to try to have a better conversation about controversial topics. The sentences from The Committee on Faith and Order appear to be a combination of past misuses of the phrase with some corrections and more responsible interpretation. In reading through the sentences, I had a kind of déjà vu experience. Some of it sounded like it came from the manuscript I used when I spoke to the Council of Bishops. Other parts seemed to reaffirm what I critiqued or rejected. In its current form, the document could be used either to support a robust theological vision for reclaiming Christian conferencing or to support a gross distortion of the practice. There is simply not enough precision to rule either out.

In my view, the Advance DCA fails to offer a clear definition of what Christian conferencing is. How do we know when we are doing it? How do we know when attempts to Christian conference are falling short of what ought to be considered an instituted means of grace? Reading through the ADCA, I feel a bit like we are hoping that if we say “Christian conferencing” enough that somehow it will happen. I’m also left with the impression that we still lack a coherent and compelling articulation of what it in fact is.

Clearly defining Christian conferencing is a real challenge, and all the more so because Wesley himself did not offer a clear definition. The one time he refers to Christian conferencing, all he offers are a series of rhetorical questions that could be used to support misuses of the practice.

The need for a deeper understanding of Christian conferencing is one of the main reasons my advice to the Council of Bishops was that General Conference and Annual Conference would be the appropriate contexts for preaching and teaching on Christian conference and the role it has played in our tradition –not trying to engage in the practice itself. If we are not crystal clear on what the practice is that we are trying to reclaim, then we don’t seem to have much hope of succeeding in practicing it at General Conference – the most highly politicized and stressful expression of our collective life together.

Stay tuned: The next post will point towards a clear articulation of what Christian conferencing is and ways to reclaim this practice in contemporary Methodism.