 |
||
|
||
A live report from the 2005 US National Conference and General Conference. Tuesday NightJune 21 - Page 5 7:01 pm We're back for the evening session. The guys who attended the UB Historical Society banquet are back, thereby refuting my prediction that the banquet would go long and they wouldn't make it here before 7:20. Good for them. I was talking to the three guys from Hong Kong--Ajiax Wo, their new superintendent, KK Chan, who heads up their social work, and missions director Mark Choi. Wonderful fellows. They get their annual conference done in one afternoon. But they were quick to point out differences, such as the vastly larger size of the United States, both geographically and in terms of members and churches. Bishop Hirschy has called us to order. He says he plans to end the session by 9:00. They voted down the Central proposal during the afternoon. Now they're on the original chapter on Clusters. The Cluster group chapter is broken down into bite-sized proposals, eight of them in all. Tom Brodbeck is leading us through the individual proposals, so we can get a good grasp of the whole. Having gone through them all, the whole shabang is on the table for discussion. Technically, it might be "shebang." I should be more exact. A question was asked about how this would work out on a practical basis. Pat Jones, who was part of the cluster study committee that developed this chapter, is giving a response. He sees clusters being a long-term thing, rather than people jumping from cluster to cluster. Ted Doolittle (Sandusky) offered an amendment which would do this: substitute all of the amendments proposed by Central's delegation, with the exception of one part dealing with cluster leaders. Bishop Hirschy felt it would be bringing back in way too much material that was already voted down. Tom Brodbeck suggested that he could just make specific amendments to the Cluster chapter, rather than make a wholesale replacement using the Central proposal. So he moved to amend something or other. We're sorting it out to see whether Mr. Roberts, who created that accursed manual of rules, would approve. It seems he would. I have my doubts, but so be it. Ted Doolittle said that if we're organizing our cluster groups by churches, then all ministers on a staff--youth, music, senior pastors, etc.--would be thrown into the same group. He preferred allowing ministers to be in groups with other ministers of similar situations. For instance, let youth ministers be in a cluster group with other youth ministers, and let them hold each other accountable according to issues specific to their field. (I'm editorializing a bit here, but I think Ted would approve.) That would be a "pastor-based" system. But if clusters are based on church, then everyone on staff at a church would need to be in the same group. Jim Kendall said that if a pastor is dealing with, say, a moral issue in his life and needs the help of other ministers, and he doesn't want this to become known in his congregation, a purely pastor-based cluster group system would be better. Joe Abu (Mid-Atlantic clergy) said he doesn't see much difference between what we're doing now, and what we did before. We're going back to discussion about pastor vs. church clusters. Good point. Anthony Blair says he's looking for a win-win. He offered a potential win-win. Ted Doolittle didn't consider it one. It would start the cluster group "definition" with "United Brethren congregations and/or ministers are encouraged to associate...", instead of "United Brethren congregations and ministers...." Duane Huerlein wanted to hear from more laypersons. He said ministers are concerned that it puts too much focus on them, but he didn't seem unduly concerned about that. You didn't ask, but here's my opinion. I'm a practical guy. In practice, functionally, cluster groups are going to be a pastor thing. Laypersons are not involved hardly anywhere, except on some denominational committees, and I don't see them getting involved in the clusters. It'll be just pastors. The wording which says clusters will be for "Providing for Ministerial and/or Congregational Accountability" seems problematic, especially as it relates to "congregational accountability." If only the pastors are involved in the clusters, but there is congregational accountability--how does that work? Do decisions in the cluster trump decisions of the local board, or of the board of elders? What is the "hammer" that makes accountability for the local church true accountability? Beth Palmer spoke. She thinks this needs more thought. It's complicated and very important. Lester Smith (Michindoh clergy) doesn't understand the fuss. "Just because we say ministers and congregations have to participate in these clusters doesn't mean they have to do it together. To me, it's just a mini annual conference." They voted on Ted Doolittle's amendment. It was 33-26 against. Obviously, the delegates are pretty split about basic issues regarding cluster groups. Luke Fetters said that if he saw a heading on "Definition," he should be able to get a clear understanding of what something is about. But in what is being proposed, he sees only groups getting together to pursue common interests and projects. Nothing about accountability. "If I'm going to embrace this cluster concept, some of you folks feel very strongly that accountabilitly must be in here, but I don't even see it in the definition." "I'll echo Luke's sentiments," said Tom Brodbeck. "If this definition is what these groups are about, they're a waste of time and I'll vote 'no' on their adoption." Phew. Here's the passage they're referring to:
Anthony Blair said he had something to do with the definition, and would gladly abandon it. But he doesn't want to remove congregations from the definition of a cluster. If they (Central) could come up with something to do that, he would be fine with it. Luke Fetters said he would take Anthony's suggestion. He wants to amend paragraph 641 to say, "United Brethren congregations and ministers are required to associate formally and informally with congregations and groups both within and outside the United Brethren church for the purpose of developing and maintaining pastoral and congregational health." The changes are in bold. Several persons arose, wanting to speak. First up is Roger Burk from Michigan. If that's the definition, is this the basic elemental group that everyone must be part of? Dan Paternoster voiced the same concern, including that we're requiring associations outside the denomination. He would prefer "encouraging" these associations, rather than requiring that. He even proposed an amendment to change it back to "encouraged." That amendment passed. Paul Michelson headed toward the microphone. "Paul Michelson, are you addressing this amendment?" asked Paul Hirschy. "Probably," came the reply. He went on to say that the definition doesn't differentiate between clusters and associations (at the risk of repeating myself: I still don't see how all of this will work out in practice, this "association" thing). He said part of the problem may be that we're trying to create constitutional-type language in a committee of the whole. Maybe it would be better to let a small group of people work on an acceptable defintion tonight and come back with it tomorrow. To which I uttered, under my breath, "Amen" (before telling the world about it online). Anthony Blair then rose, apologized for talking too much, and promised to stop talking so much. I'm interested in holding him to it, as is Randy Carpenter sitting beside me. But alas, we may be too hard on Anthony. He's attempting to be helpful, and is currently trying to explain what this whole thing is about. "It is a little confusing," he admitted. "But it's all about how ministers will relate to each other in the new structure." He said the chapter shouldn't be titled "clusters." A lot of this concept originated with Anthony in the UBHope (RIP) days. He thoroughly understands how it will work. The rest of us may be a bit slow. There was an offer to withdraw an amendment, and to withdraw an amendment to an amendment. Beth Palmer moved that we table the motion until morning, so we could work on it better. Somehow it got nixed. But then Denny Miller moved that we defer action, and that several persons, including Anthony Blair and Luke Fetters, be named to work on a new defintion and work out any other relevent bugs. Approved. Leadership TeamsWe're now on chapter 38, "Leadership Teams," found in Report 83. Chapter 38 is an introductory chapter, giving information pertinent to all of the leadership teams. For instance, proposal 38-1 would add a point making the US bishop a member of each leadership team. It passed. A couple more minor changes passed. Nothing earth-shaking. Now we're on the chapter dealing with the Administrative Leadership Team, a group added in 2001. There's just one propossal, but it may get some discussion. The line says, "The ELT is responsible for all matters pertaining to the directors." Dan Paternoster wanted to make sure it wasn't a typo--that it didn't actually mean the ALT. Nope, it's the ELT. Steve Dennie doesn't make typos. The motion passed. 8:05 pm Now, the Education Leadership Team, with four proposals. The first part says, "The Director of Education shall be appointed by the US bishop and the Executive Leadership Team." That's a change. Currently, he is elected by the US National Conference. It passed. The other three proposals passed quickly. Frankly, none of the proposals in the chapters on the leadership teams are particularly cosmos-rattling, so forgive me if I sluff off for a bit. When we get to the chapter on the Pastoral Ministry Leadership Team, a new team, there will be plenty of discussion. My back hurts. Been sitting up straight for way too many hours. Pity party. Proposal 41-1 says of the Global Ministries director, "This person shall be appointed by the US bishop and the Executive Leadership Team." Same idea as above with the Education Director. It passed. These are pretty significant actions. Now, the bishop is the only elected official. The bishop will be the main mover in selecting these directors. Gary Dilley's name will not appear on a ballot, but he'll need to wait to see if the new bishop and the new ELT want to keep him around. Welcome to my boat. Luke Fetters raised a good question regarding Donna Hollopeter. In one place, she is advisory to the Global Ministries team by virtue of being staff. But in another section, she's a voting member because she's the Women's Ministries missions coordinator. Gary Dilley explained that Donna has given up her vote and served only in an advisory capacity, thereby making it work. "You'll probably shoot me for this, because I didn't ask it earlier," said Ron Ramsey. He then noted an inconsistency: we stated under the ALT chapter that the ELT is "responsible for all matters pertaining to the directors," but the Global Ministries chapter gives the GMLT the same responsibility concerning their director. To solve that, Denny Miller moved that we reconsider the earlier decision. The item in the ALT giving them responsiblity for matters pertaining to the directors was stricken. I remember when this was discussed and proposed. The group felt that the Global Ministries team, not the ALT, should be responsible for staff evaluations. With the change they just made, Gary won't be responsible for evaluating his staff, but the ALT will be. And they'll set salaries for his staff, though they may possibly do that already. And the bishop won't be responsible for staff evaluations involving the directors, since the ALT now has responsibility for "all matters pertaining to the UB Headquarters Building--staff, payroll, equipment, maintenance, etc." The previous group wanted to separate out the directors from the support staff. There was good reason. But those good reasons didn't reach the floor tonight. Oh well. I have the distinct feeling that I'm making a lot more typos, but just don't have the wherewithall to go back, squint into my screen, and do a search-and-destroy thing on them. Education Leadership TeamBlair Dowden wondered why the Education team members must be elected by the US National Conference, rather than appointed, like on the other teams. It seems I'm the only one that remembers that, in 2001, the then-Education Team requested that these persons be elected. Ah, the brevity of institutional memory. A motion was made to reconsider proposal 40-2, which deals with electing those persons. Blair made a motion that the seven Education team members be appointed by the bishop and approved by the Executive Leadership Team, as done with the other leadership teams. Bishop Hirschy noted that since Education team members are also trustees of Huntington University, and trustees have term limits, something to that effect needs to be included, so that these persons aren't in-and-out in two years. 8:31 pm They amended the Educaton team thing so that the members are appointed by the bishop. Nobody mentioned this, but it means that the bishop has the power to remove college trustees. This was one of the reasons, four years ago, that the Education team wanted their members to be chosen by the quadrennial national conference. Oh well. Daryl Elliott made a motion that would state that the Director of Education will be the President of Huntington College. An automatic thing. The Discipline Revision Committee had raised the issue of whether or not we even need a Director of Education. That's my view--that we don't need one. Let's give the president a prominent role, but not a title that puts him, potentially, in a position of conflict of interest with the church. That's exactly what happened in the John Sanders controversy. Anthony Blair, bless his heart, is now at the microphone raising this issue, though in a different way. Brian Hughes says this will solidify things, stating unequivocally that Huntington University is our choice when it comes to higher education. He favored stating that the HU president will be the Director of Education. The idea passed. The President is now a lock for Director of Education. The question still remains: Why do we need a director of Education? Save that for another day. I'm getting cranky. Other TeamsA motion passed regarding the Healthy Church Team. Bishop Hirschy said that two members of the Women's Ministry team said they would prefer that the chapter on the Women's Ministry Team be removed from the Discipline. Denny Sites, the husband of one of those anonymous persons, made a motion to that affect. Women's Ministries has been a full-blown leadership team, but now it will be a sub-team of the Healthy Church Team. Same level as the Youth Ministry Team. The motion passed. Pastoral Ministry Leadership TeamWe're looking at making the Commission on Ministry a full leadership team, and calling it the Pastoral Ministry Leadership Team. It'll have these responsibilities:
Pat Jones noted that both the PMLT and the bishop have responsibility to develop a "strategy for recruiting future pastors." That duplication needed to be eliminated. Ron Ramsey suggested changing it to say, "The PMLT, in conjunction with the bishop, shall develop a strategy for recruiting future pastors." It passed. Pat Jones had also mentioned point nine as infringing on responsibilities of the bishop and stationing committee when it comes to stationing. Tom Brodbeck says the PMLT will only "set guidelines and procedures," not do the actual stationing. Sam Quinn was bothered that an outside entity--the church--could make a pastoral change in another legally incoporporated entity, the annual conference. That's how we've done it, like, forever, but he didn't think it would be considered legal in a court of law. Bishop Hirschy said we're not looking at changing the stationing process--we'll continue doing what we've done for many many years. On behalf of the Central delegation, Tom Brodbeck offered an amendment to up the number of ELT-appointed members on the PMLT from 7 to 9. "Up to" nine, that is. Tom Datema says this, again, deals with the nature of a cluster, and we need to settle that first before we can determine these issues related to stationing of pastors. 9:06 pm The bishop adjourned the meeting until tomorrow morning at 8:30. Wow, we got a lot done today. But tomorrow will still be a full day. |