A live report from the 2005 US National Conference and General Conference.
Written, with occasionally annoying commentary, by Steve Dennie, UB Communications Director

Tuesday Afternoon

Page 4. 3:45 pm.

And we're back.

Mid-Atlantic advanced one of their pre-advanced proposals, this one regarding the covenant. It goes like this:

"If a church does not sign and submit the covenant to the national office 90 days prior to the National Conference session, the cluster leader (or another elder designated by the Bishop) shall hold a specially called congregational meeting of the church membership at least 60 days prior to the National Conference. The purpose of this meeting would be to determine if it is the desire of the membership to sign and continue in a covenant relationship with the United Brethren in Christ USA or to withdraw from said relationship. If a majority of the church's members at a duly called meeting determine not to sign the covenant, then the church shall be considered to have withdrawn from the United Brethren in Christ, USA."

It passed.

While the delegates talk about some things that, in my humble opinion, aren't all that important, and I don't want to spend my waining mental energy trying to figure it out, let me take this opportunity to apologize for typos. We're talking spelling errors, mostly. I'm not proofing this stuff. I'll find things later--like next week--and be horrified, but right now I'm just typing furiously.

They're on 32-6, which outlines responsibilities of the National Conference. Brian Hughes is noting that while we approved a referendum for 2007 which removed the requirement that every session of the National Conference elect a bishop, point 4 under 32-6 says each US National Conference shall elect a US bishop. They decided to delete that line.

32-7 is on the floor. It's a paragraph passed in 2001 aimed at the John Sanders issue at Huntington University. In amending it on the floor, the meaning got really messed up and didn't make sense. This amendment cleared up the meaning, and then Anthony Blair moved to delete it entirely, saying we had worked through this issue and that it was now redundant.

"Where is it redundant?" Duane Huerlein asked. He wanted to know where, in the Discipline, the idea is already handled. Anthony gave a response which referred to various things in the Discipline, and that it was implicit, if not spelled out specifically. It wasn't really convincing. Daryl Elliot wasn't convinced. He spoke against deleting it (even though he and Anthony are seated next to each other). The motion to delete failed, big-time.

Here's what it says: "When practices, teachings, or decisions within a local church, or by denominational US National Conference officials and institutions, challenge the doctrinal integrity (as defined by the Confession of Faith), cooperative relationship, and/or ministry of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, USA, the US National Conference shall have the authority to apply whatever disciplinary action it considers appropriate."

Election of Delegates

We're adopting a whole new structure, but the procedure for electing delegates is based very much on the old way. Same kind of deadlines, reporting procedures, etc. The Discipline Revision Committee proposed a whole new chapter based specifically on a new structure.

Uh oh, they asked me to speak on something here, and I'm confused, even though I wrote it. Flustered. I think I made a fool of myself trying to get my bearings. But--hallelujah!!--the proposal passed. Actually, a Supplemental proposal passed. It'll give us lots more flexibility when it comes to the elections prior to the US National Conference.

4:15 pm

Clusters

They're going back to the proposals regarding clusters. Previously, not everyone had the printed materials. Some kind of glitch in the otherwise infallible Headquarters distribution system. But now they've got copies, and they're ready to tackle it again.

The clusters are a key component of the new structure.

The Central delegation presented a proposal for changing the nature of the clusters, so that clusters would be for pastors--not for churches. Their rationale states, "We believe that the inclusion of local churches in the cluster format unnecessarily confuses the role and primary purpose of these groups. We believe that for the cluster format to work effectively, they must be centered on pastoral training and accountability." And so, they suggested that this be the "definition and goals" of clusters:

Clusters shall be established for the purpose of developing and maintaining pastoral health through mutual friendships, coaching, and accountability.

Daryl Elliott (Mid-Atlantic) said he doesn't see congregational accountability built into the previous document.

Paul Michelson (Central lay) said they see the clusters as being better designed for nurturing of ministers. He talked about issues of accountability. It's important, philosophical stuff, but I'm not sure how to sum up what he's saying. He says there's a danger of turning the clusters into mini-conferences, rather than letting them focus on pastoral development and nurturing.

Roger Burk says they have "clusters" in Michigan Conference, but the proposal would make them work very differerently, because lots of administrative stuff, previously handled by superintendents, would fall on the cluster leaders. He wanted them to focus on the same things that Paul Michelson wanted. So I guess he agreed with separating the "church" part out of clusters.

Joe Abu (Mid-Atlantic clergy) asked, "Is this all about just pastors, this structure we're dealing with?" Or does it extend down into the congregations. He wanted the congregations to have the chance to participate in the clusters.

This is an important, consequential discussion. It goes to the heart of what the clusters are about.

Paul Michelson: "What we're trying to move toward is a different paradigm. I don't see the clusters, in our revised formulation, as being"--got too far behind, so I need to get out of quoting mode--little conferences. "This is not part of any kind of power structure. It's an attempt to develop different ways of relating." Will this put more responsibility on the bishop? That's problematic. He kept speaking, but I stopped typing.

There are several hours' worth of discussion here. As I've told people, these discussions can occur before the conference starts, or they will occur on the floor. Since we're rushing this whole thing into implementation, with proposals coming before delegates just in the last two months, there hasn't been a chance for the extended, face-to-face discussions to hammer out issues of philosophy and purpose. So, we're having those philosophical discussions on the floor, which isn't exactly the best forum for doing that.

Tom Brodbeck said congregations don't attend cluster meetings. Their participation is only through the pastor. He said Central's delegation feels that "associations" are the place for congregations, and that it only clouds the issue to dump congregational accountability on clusters, which are better designed to focus on the coaching, nurturing, and development of pastors.

Anthony Blair said he's never had a concept of clusters that didn't include congregations. If we leave out congregations, he sees certain "dysfunctions" arising. He also spoke against the idea of shifting increasing authority to a centralized setting.

Tom Datema spoke about the idea of "associations," which would be groups that form around certan purposes or whatever, but are not the primary entity for accountability. Like, having an association built around a camp program, or Michigan's Lane Home Fund. Lee Rhodes, from Michigan, mentioned the latter. Personally, the role of associations has never really clicked in my mind, but I can be dense. Other people do have it figured out.

Roger Burk said he had a question for the Central delegation. Regarding the responsibilities and work load of cluster leaders--how is that work load addressed in the "thinking of Central Conference." I'm not sure why I put that in quotes.

Oops, he was declared out of order. I'm not sure why, but he's not objecting.

There was a vote about deleting a sentence somewhere--I'm a bit lost right now, because we're jumping between the Central recommendations and the original proposals. It was a close vote on deleting that sentence, so they're having a hand vote. The motion to "amend by deleting the last sentence" passed 29-25. The sentence, Randy Carpenter just showed me, reads, "An official ministry association must request to be recognized as such in writing to the ELT."

Ron Cook (Mid-Atlantic) spoke in opposition to substituting the Central recommendation. He said a committee thought this out in advance, whereas they just received the material from Central Conference and hadn't had time to work through it. Actually, I just received it yesterday and prepared it for the delegates. Ron said some of the things they have in mind may be good, but he doesn't want to substitute something that's been thought out for something that is relatively new.

Jim Kendall spoke in favor of the amendment. "We need to decide what is the purpose of the cluster," he said. Originally, he understood it as a place for nurturing pastors, with the idea that it would trickle down to help congregations. "On the flip side," the proposed structure would still require an entity to continue some of the administrative work currently handled by conferences. He felt too much administrative responsibility will be targeted to the cluster leaders, stuff that conference superintendents do now. You get a fulltime pastor to be a cluster leader, and then ask him to also take on responsibilities of a conference superintendent--well, that would be too much in his mind. But he's not sure where we'll put those responsibilities. They have to land somewhere.

Tom Brodbeck says the biggest mistake we can make is to implement clusters incrementally, Over time, we'll add things to clusters until we end up with 30 mini conferences. "If we're going to make this kind of change, we need to make it in one giant step, a clear step. And if there are things falling through the cracks, we need a different mechanism to handle that."

Phil Whipple (Michigan clergy) said he's not against Central's ideas. He just wants accountability to be put somewhere. Like auditing of the pastor, which conferences currently do.

Bishop Hirschy said we're approaching supper, and he wants us to vote. We're on the Central Conference recommendation, as amended. We would substitute it in place of the chapter on Clusters in the Discipline revision material. The voice vote was close, so a division was needed. The Mid-Atlantic and Michindoh people seem to be against it, while the Sandusky, Central, and Michigan people are in favor. Looks close, as I look at the raised hands.

And the verdict is: 27-31. That's pretty close for a major philosophical decision. The proposal to substitute has lost. Anthony Blair is happy, the Central delegation is disappointed.

5:05. Time for Supper.

Go to page 5, the Tuesday evening session