Not that it matters, but one issue not directly discussed is the changing of the dates for the 2013 World Conference. At the 2010 World Conference, the dates of April 13-20, 2013 were presented, discussed, had amendments proposed and finally voted on and approved by the body politic.

Again, it's no big deal, but does it interest anyone that the First Presidency, or the USA Apostles, or whoever, has unilaterally overridden Conference action by changing these dates to accomodate the USA Conference?

We've discussed how the First Presidency has used Section 164 to unilaterally decide which legislation the World Conference will or will not address - and now we see leadership just ignoring World Conference action.

Perhaps this is for the best.

Delay, Delay, Delay

I'm not one to say "I told you so".

But I did.

April 2010

But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for one to question whether a conservative (institutionally if not ideologically) leadership struggling to maintain status quo during a time of economic and theological upheaval, may have just found a way to once again put off a difficult and potentially divisive decision for another day – upsetting some, but outraging no one. Might there be another problem as leaders attempt to “create and interpret Church policy” or implement local or national conference? Sure. But I’m sure the First Presidency, as Scarlett O’Hara put it – is happy to think about that tomorrow, after all, tomorrow, is another day.

Executive Power

In my opinion, Br Veazey is merely streamlining and codifying the state of leadership in the Community of Christ since the beginning. Although we have always had World Conference and common consent, in practice, they have never meant much. Real policies are always set by the leadership, either by divine revelation, or by just doing it (no conference action or divine inspiration created the policy that says priesthood can't perform civil marriages of glbt, for example).

In general, the Presidency has used its influence to direct Conference action to its desired outcome - either through direct action, or indirect usurption of rules. In the rare event that Conference takes action in contravention of Presidential desires (non-discrimination policy; requirement that all publications are simultaneously translated into 3 languages) they are generally ignored. This is possible because of the fact that our structure has no checks and balances. Their is no Supreme Court to take leadership to, there is no official opposition to criticize, and no policy auditors with even the ability to see if they are conforming to WC dictate.

All Br Veazey is doing differently, in my mind, is stopping the charade. WC becomes less and less legislative and more and more about learning and communing ( go back and count how many resolutions have been adopted by WC over Br Veazey's tenure ). With the establishing of the "non-legislative" national conferences to handle any contentious issue, he has further established the notion that there is a collaberative process of decision making, but that the ultimate decision is not made by raising our hands, but by the Presdiency.

And this is not necessarily a bad thing. We do not have a corporate body or structure that is very capable of important legislative decision making. Delegates are not chosen based on their insight, knowledge or position on any particular issue. Due to the nature of WC, delegates are genearally not a very good representation of consituents, as they need to be made up of people with the time and resources to attend. And, as previously stated, there is no mechanism for checks and balances anyway. So having decisions made by a bunch of relatively homogenious, disinterested and uninformed reunion-goers is not exactly a solid cornerstone for representative government.

That said. Br Veazey does have a choice. He could implement a better system, a better structure - where the constituents of the Church are actually represented. Resolutions could be presented in such a manner to allow proper, deliberative consideration prior to Conference. He could establish a body to hold the Church accountable for decisions made and a mechanism for checks and balances of power, in order to give the legislative process some real legitimacy.

Of course, as long as you agree with the way the President is leading the church, the most efficient and effective way to go is through a more dictatorial style of government. This is certainly the direction the US is going as it vests more and more power in the executive.

In that event, however, the most important decision the body can make, is who that executive is.

Taking a Stand

Here's the deal, folks: indidivduals, in the name of their religion, do something. If we deny those individuals certain rights that we might grant others, that is intollerance. If we tell those individuals that we disagree with what they did, that's not intollerance, that's merely disagreement.

In this instance, Group A flew some planes into the World Trade Center in the name of Islam. Group B responds to that by non-violently expressing its disagreement against this action and other actions of violent extremism. Group C responds, not to the first act, by Group A, but to the second act, by Group B - saying that it is intollerant, and hateful.

I don't get it. The Church in Flordia is objecting to violent acts carried out by extremist Muslims. They are doing so in a non-violent fashion without breaking any laws and, frankly, in the tradition of many who protest by burning representative things (flags, efegies, etc.) This is not intollerance. They are not saying that Muslim's shouldn't be allowed to build certain places (like the Ground Zero Mosque - for which the CofC did not "denounce"). I thought we all denounced the acts of violent extremists in general and 9/11 specifically?

So why does the CofC (Group C) publicly denounce this legal and non-violent denunciation (oh the irony)? Probably because it's easy. Because everyone is opposed to it. And, because we all claim to be "christian" so it's ok to criticize other christians. I doubt we'd get the same lecture from the CofC leadership of Muslim clerics calling for the killing of Christians. Now that sounds intollerant.

Responding to Budget Woes

A conference minister within the United Church of Christ gave a workshop presentation a couple of weeks ago and left the attendees with, what he called, the “one thing” they could do to ensure healthy and growing congregations. It was for each adult in that congregation to get to know one child or youth in the congregation by name, to know what school they go to, what grade they’re in, what their teacher’s name was, and what they were interested in – and then to talk to that youth each Sunday, calling them by name and asking what is happening in their lives.

The concept is not profound, but I know I don’t know any youth in my congregation that intimately. But his next point struck me even more. Someone responded cynically that, with soccer and baseball and other Sunday sports activities, their youth were rarely around. His response was to recount his own testimony about attending his grandchildren’s t-ball games. He said that, when each child went up to bat, every grown-up there, from her parents, to her coaches, to the other players’ parents, to the parents of the other teams’ kids, called out her name, shouting encouragement and voicing their support for her success. “Perhaps,” he said, “if Church were more like that, it would make a difference.”

I thought about this story as I read President Veazey’s address to the Community of Christ Finance Board regarding the latest woeful budget numbers. What strikes me as concerning is the overarching paradigm of leadership that current mission and work is above reproach such that the status quo is not only important to maintain, but the lack of response by the members is solely a result of their lack of awareness of how good this mission is or a lack of personal responsibility for the success of this mission.

The response of Church leadership to fiscal troubles appears to be almost entirely uni-directional. Diminished funds are a result of a failure in response of the membership and needs to be addressed by an increased response.

I desperately want to believe our people will respond to the vision and case for giving that we will be presenting to them.

I am going to trust the Spirit to bless the church and turn our members’ hearts to increased generosity in support of our worldwide mission.

I also will talk to people who are deeply devoted to this work who need some extra “inspiration” for increasing their generosity to reflect their full capacity.

To the extent World Church or leadership should be engaged, it is for the purpose of helping individuals better respond.

I am asking the Presiding Bishopric and Integrated Communications to reformat the FY 2011 budget you have just approved to communicate clearly the ministries supported by WMMT in contrast to those supported by other income sources.

Be a positive spokesperson for our worldwide ministries and the importance of supporting those ministries through tithing.

Be proactive in your public teaching and preaching ministry to bring positive witness to bear on Disciples Generous Response principles, World Church mission, and the need to support worldwide ministries that are making a real difference in the world.

Let me be clear: I do not mean at all to imply that world ministries specifically, or the Church’s wider mission in general is not laudable or even superior. I know many who work diligently in this area and are rightly committed and proud of this work and I am not meaning here to disparage it in any way.

But couldn’t some of the lack of response to the mission be attributable, in even a small part, to the mission itself? After all if we subscribe to the theology that tithing is a response, rather than merely a responsibility, then it stands to reason that the two sides of the coin should be examined in the face of decline – the response, and the mission to which we are asked to respond.

Imagine parents stop signing their kids up for a particular local t-ball league after years of full membership. To what would you attribute this decline? Do you suppose it’s because people have forgotten how much fun the league was? Have they forgotten how good the league is for their kids? Have parents made other choices, poorer choices even, at the expense of their children? All of these are perhaps possible and certainly, any good strategy for recovery would include a campaign to remind past members and inform new membership.

However, if support is waning for the league wouldn’t it make just good common sense for the league to take a look at its own product for potential problems? Has the t-ball league changed in a way that people didn’t like? Has the league failed to change in ways that made it less competitive relative to alternative sporting activities?

Shouldn’t the Church be asking itself these questions? And perhaps they are – but if they are, shouldn’t they also be communicating this to the members? Because it sure doesn’t sound like it – to the contrary, it sounds like it’s all the members’ fault: they’re not generous enough; they are unaware of the importance of the mission; they need extra “inspiration.”

Moreover, President Veazey is resolute that he will moralistically stick to the mission notwithstanding any contrary opinions of the members.

A nonnegotiable for me is that I will not compromise vision, message, and the Spirit’s clear guidance in the face of threats from individuals that they will withdraw their financial support if they do not agree with church direction or certain decisions.

I’m not saying he should not take this approach in the face of individual threats, but the optics are that Leadership sets the mission and we are to follow. If we elect not to follow, however, President Veazey makes it clear that threats can go both ways.

Another nonnegotiable for me is priesthood support of World Ministries Mission Tithes. Soon, we will put in place an administrative policy that will state clearly that we will not approve the ordinations of people whose understanding of the gospel and ordained ministry does not include awareness and support of the worldwide ministries of the church through tithing.

Again, this is not to say that the Leadership does not have the right mission and the right policies. But this message by President Veazey comes across as arrogant and elitist, and certainly doesn’t inspire me to increase giving.

If the President’s goal is not first and foremost to maintain status quo – then don’t open your budget address congratulating yourself that “[t]his budget decrease was achieved without staff reductions” - because members that aren’t close friends and colleagues with world church staff, probably don’t get passionate about increasing giving so that more church employees can keep their jobs. (Imagine President Obama having a press conference saying he managed certain minimal budget cuts – but “good news!” – they were all from cuts to programs and none of his staff will have to lose their jobs!)

If the President is examining the mission of the Church to see if it can be more meaningful in order to elicit a more meaningful response from members, then don’t dismiss concerns of members with regard to that mission as being “non-negotiable.”

If the President wants tithing to be a response to the ministry of Jesus, rather than admission to the club, then don’t threaten to deny what are supposed to be calls of God due to a failure to pony up in a sufficient manner.

The Community of Christ is not alone in this struggle. All denominational churches are seeing membership and giving decline – and have seen this for decades. But note the following contrasting response from the UCC:

Minister and Team Lead for Financial Development, Donaldson Hill, will provide leadership to a team exploring a broad range of alternate income streams and says that the projected budget shortfall "reflects the redefinition of the role of denominations."

Hill maintains that attitudes in the church and throughout society have shifted in such a way that the funding of ministry and non-profit organizations is changing dramatically. "We need to catch up with and build our organization around this change," says Hill. "That will be our task over the next few years. Going back to old funding models will not work."

The Church needs to implore those who use the services of the Church, who value it’s mission, to understand their responsibilities to support those services and the mission. But I don’t hold out a lot of hope for anyone who looks at the problem of declining interest, declining membership and declining donations as solely the problem of those who don’t feel compelled to give.

Community of Christ National Conference

Does anyone have any further insight on the discussions/decisions regarding national or field conferences? I know there were meetings after World Conference, and that summer 2012 has been penciled in as a potential US Conference date, but have their been further developments?

In the words of Bugsy Siegel: I cannot function efficiently when I am in a state of ignorance.

Thanks for your help.

Section 164: Homosexuality

If you read my blog and don’t read over at Saints Herald or John Hamer’s stuff, then you are short-changing yourself. These professional writers with insider connections offer valuable insight to anyone interested in the inner workings and institutional goings-on at the Community of Christ.

As noted below, the delegates at the 2010 Community of Christ World Conference overwhelmingly (is there any other way?) approved the canonization of new Doctrine and Covenants Section 164. Part of this new Section deals with the on-again off-again issue of re-baptism that was referred to the First Presidency back at the last World Conference. The other thrust was the introduction of regional, national or cultural conferences to address certain questions which are not appropriate to deal with in an international setting due to a variety of reasons.

But wait, you say, I thought the other part was about homosexuality – indeed paving the way for the imminent acceptance of GLBT (if not already opening the door)? Well, you’re not alone and I have no doubt that this was certainly on the mind of the Prophet when he penned these words. Others have assumed that we would now move to call national conferences, particularly in the US and western countries, to address the issue of homosexuality. And indeed we may.

Of course, reasonable people may believe otherwise.

And is it unreasonable to at least be skeptical? President McMurray made many believe that he was on the cusp of opening the church to GLBT when he asked us to live on the boundaries during his 2002 address to the World Conference and organized the Committee on Homosexuality and the Church with the express mission “to provide overview and guidance to the church-wide dialogue process regarding homosexuality in the church and make recommendations to the First Presidency regarding future policy or guidelines.”

Many felt that affirmation was imminent. But after walking back on policy in the face of the Community, Common Consent and the Issue of Homosexuality published after the World Church Leadership Council after their fall 2002 meeting, resolutions again flooded into Headquarters for World Conference 2004. If the WCLC wanted a decision by common consent – well by golly they were going to get it. A decision would be made – and in just a couple short years!

Of course, the litany of resolutions brought before the 2004 World Conference never received a vote either. The First Presidency deviated from parliamentary procedure to bring their own last-minute resolution calling for the referral of all homosexuality-related questions. Like D&C 164, this passed and the resolutions were swept off the board. Of course, there was great confidence and trust in President McMurray and the continued work of David Brock and the Committee on Homosexuality and the Church. Moreover, we had instituted listening circles, to begin healthy dialogue.

Surely by the 2006 World Conference, we would have an outline of new policies, or a pathway to achieve them.

But as happens from time to time (and of which we constantly run the risk if we delay) – a funny thing happened on the way to World Conference 2006. President McMurray resigned and a special conference was held to select Stephen M. Veazey as his successor. No legislation was considered at the 2005 Conference and the next was pushed from 2006 to 2007.

Tick tock. Tick tock.

At the 2007 World Conference, the topic that dominated the last two regular conferences was not in sight. No resolutions addressed the issue that had been hopefully referred to the First Presidency. The Committee on Homosexuality and the Church gave its report where it revealed the tremendous failure of its efforts to promote dialogue on the subject and elected to decline its mandate to make policy recommendations. The Committee was disbanded after conference, and no similar committee was ever instituted to examine policy or the issues surrounding GLBT in the Community of Christ.

Of course, this all changed when, in spring 2009, Community of Christ priesthood presided over the marriage of two same-sex couples in Iowa after the secular legal right was acknowledged by the Iowa supreme court.

So once again, the eyes of the GLBT world turned to Independence and a lot of some 20 resolutions were presented to the Conference addressing (once and for all!) the issue of homosexuality. What happened next is a matter of some interpretation.

Some feel that leadership, through Section 164 set the stage to finally accept homosexuals; doing so in a practical, if not dramatic fashion. Did those individuals feel the same way after 2002 with the President’s commitment and the institution of the Committee? After 2004 with listening circles and a First Presidency mandate to develop new policies? I’d be interested to know.

But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for one to question whether a conservative (institutionally if not ideologically) leadership struggling to maintain status quo during a time of economic and theological upheaval, may have just found a way to once again put off a difficult and potentially divisive decision for another day – upsetting some, but outraging no one. Might there be another problem as leaders attempt to “create and interpret Church policy” or implement local or national conference? Sure. But I’m sure the First Presidency, as Scarlett O’Hara put it – is happy to think about that tomorrow, after all, tomorrow, is another day.

Whether that day is one of openness and acceptance of all God’s children, remains to be seen.