Wesleyan General Conference Decisions

I know many will feel the opposite but I thought yesterday went very well at the Wesleyan General Conference (GC).  Here are four things that make me think we are on the right track as a denomination. I am very encouraged.

1. First, the GC voted to change its structure to one General Superintendent (GS) with four Executive Directors. I could see both sides to this debate (former GS Lee Haines made a fine counter-speech) but, in the end, I think they made the right decision for two reasons:

• Our most gifted leaders are currently not at all attracted to enter denominational leadership. I think this is because, for good or ill, the idea of being part of a relatively weak three person pow-wow is not attractive to them. The down side is that the position might now be very appealing to megalomaniacs, the testosterony, and individuals who mistake their own personalities for God's. It's a trade off ;-)
• It shows "large organization" rather than "small church" thinking. Lee Haines mentioned that Roy Nicholson, a GS from the 1950s, thought the one GS model had been horrible. But I can't imagine he knew as much about leadership as even I do now (as a naturally-born leadership idiot), given the massive literature out there these last 50 years.  In particular, I doubt he knew how to delegate and set up a support structure. He probably thought the GS needed to kiss every baby in every church.

2. Second, the GC voted to continue with Joanne Lyon as that one GS.  Mind you, I'd rather have someone else leading a parliamentary procedure, but I firmly believe she is the right person for the job. I've been disappointed to recognize that there is still some resistance in the WC to a woman as the top person. But I celebrate that the GC, in my opinion, did the right thing. I believe she is the right person for this time.

3. We had a proposed memorial on sin to put in our Articles of Religion.  I was so pleased that the denomination voted it down in order to come up with something better.  Three reasons: 1) the other GCs of the Philippines and Caribbean were not consulted (if it had been passed, I was hoping those other conferences would vote it down to make it clear to the North American Conference that they are now our equals and can't be taken for granted on such important issues); 2) accidentally, it was written with no awareness that the article right before it already said half the same thing; and 3) it was poorly written, seemingly spliced together from various emails from key people... and in 1940s H. Orton Wiley language to boot.  Thank you church for taking the time to do it right!

4. The church voted to include marital violence as a legitimate basis for divorce.  Now, mind you, it makes our denomination look bad that we are even having to discuss this question. For one thing, although I'm not sure how to get around it, we are still operating with a "bounded set" mentality when it comes to membership, one that is overly preoccupied with who is "in" and who is "out."  A "centered-set" approach is more concerned with our core values rather than about how individuals measure up to it.

In my opinion, however, large segments of our denomination remain legal-oriented, or fundamentalist, when it comes to the Bible.  For example, if we think that a "biblical basis" for divorce can only be limited to a specific statement along the lines of "Divorce can be allowed when a husband beats his wife," then we not only are legal-oriented in our hermeneutic but we do not have the Wesleyan spirit of the 1800s on issues like slavery and women's rights.

Why was Jesus against divorce? Why was Malachi against divorce? Surely it was primarily because divorce was a form of (non-physical) violence against wives. By the way, ironically this is what Malachi 2:16 is talking about--not sure how that passage read in context does anything but support the proposal.  God hated divorce in Malachi because it was a form of violence against wives!!!

I believe Jesus' prohibitions on divorce were, in the first instance, surely meant to protect women. If so, then it is then ironic in the extreme that we find ourselves hesitant to allow for divorce in a case where a woman's life may be in constant danger. Although it is complicated and a matter of debate, it is quite possible that the prohibitions on wives divorcing husbands related more to the expansion of Jesus' message to a broader Mediterranean context than to his original Galilean audiences.

In terms of our heritage, the "principle" approach to a biblical basis is exactly the approach Luther Lee took on slavery. While the "fundamentalist" hermeneutic of his day looked to specific Scriptures that allowed for slavery, he looked to the ideal values of the biblical text instead. In that sense, the "principled" approach to issues such as this one better fit the founding spirit of the denomination than the "legal" approach.

Yes, I realize there is the potential for slippery slopes.  But I liked what one speaker was trying to say on the floor yesterday. Which side do we want to err on--the side of protecting the oppressed or worrying about whether someone is going to get by with something?

After all, I doubt God is fooled.

JoAnne Lyon Elected General Superintendent!

I'm not always proud of my church, The Wesleyan Church. I like to taut the fact that we stood against slavery when the Methodist Episcopal Church refused to take a stand. I like to mention that we ordained women in the late 1800's (the Methodists didn't do it till the 1950's).

But I also know the coffee cooler grumbling among some significants in the church against women in ministry and I hear rumors of racism. A friend of mine did a study of certain Wesleyan district conferences in the 60's--almost no mention of the civil rights movement with the exception of a few motions on the wrong side of the issue. One Wesleyan church in Alabama made the Associated Press when the pastor called the police to keep some in his congregation from going violent with some Taladega College students who came and sat in the back of the church on an Easter morning.

I believed with all my heart that God wanted The Wesleyan Church to elect JoAnne Lyon as general superintendent of our church. But I'll confess I had doubts that we were spiritually mature enough to do it.

I'm not always proud of my church. Today, I am proud of my church. I am filled with hope that we might actually made a positive difference in the world for God.

And after hearing Dr. Lyon's passioned vision for the future of the church, get ready. By God's grace we're about to get moving!

P.S. Today's been filled with unusual excitement for a General Conference, which I usually consider the height of boredom. See the denominational DJ for this WWF match: Keith Drury.

Monday Thoughts: Jo Anne Lyon at IWU Graduation

I don't know what I would do if someone ever asked me to give a graduation speech somewhere. Does anyone ever remember what the speakers say? Isn't everyone always thinking, "How long till this is over?" And yet you've probably forked out some significant money to bring this person to speak--maybe you're even going to give them an honorary doctorate. They have to say something.

Not Jo Anne Lyon this past Saturday! Wesleyans will know her as the founder of World Hope and perhaps the leading candidate to replace Earle Wilson as General Superintendant. By the way, Yes, she would take the office if elected. Yes, she is at a point where she is ready to leave World Hope (they have a well laid out succession plan already set up for whenever she would leave).

I did wonder how the crowd reacted when she mentioned she was ordained in the Wesleyan Church. But I thought she demonstrated the kind of Spirit-filled presence that confirms her place in the kingdom. I celebrate all women ministers, but also recognize that some do not help the cause politically because they fit a certain kind of stereotype that is unappealing.

Not so with her. She has a disciplined appearance and is commanding but not abrasive. She has already earned our respect--she doesn't have a chip on her shoulder, as if she is overcompensating to try to get it.

What held my attention so well was the picture she painted of a Zambian woman with AIDS, four children, almost vainly trying to break the soil because of the way the climate has already changed in that part of the world. Her children are prime candidates to be sold into slavery, a growing world phenomenon Lyon is a leader in addressing. And because this Zambian woman is a woman, she could not even own land if she wanted to.

The address ended with what World Hope has done for this woman's village. Now she and others in her village like her collectively own a plot of land that they now are able to irrigate from a local lake. A school is set up for her children, who will now be protected from slavery after she is gone.

Lyon's point was to inspire these graduates to go let God change the world through them in every way, both physically and spiritually.

Here is a person who is really changing the world. I felt very small. Ooo, ahh, Ken's a blogger who teaches Greek and knows who Rudolph Bultmann was.

It would be hard to think of a Wesleyan through whom God has done more for the kingdom of God than through this woman. Did even Orange Scott and Luther Lee really do more? John Maxwell has more trophies, but not a chance.

I can't think of anyone more appropriate to elect as General Superintendant.