Final General Conference Post

I left last night's service encouraged. The theme was on social holiness. The speakers, Christy Lipscombe and Jo Anne Lyon, presented concern for the whole person in a way that clearly integrated spiritual transformation with physical and social transformation. No one could accuse either of preaching a purely social gospel in any way.

I left feeling surprised by the conference. We have had good people in leadership these last years, but not leaders who inspired us or who made us feel like we really had any clear identity. I did not feel that way last night. I felt as if I was hearing some faint cries of a real voice from the Wesleyan Church.

In fact, I wondered if we have ever done anything in the last 40 years of any great significance at all. Jo Anne mentioned that in 1968, when the current form of the church emerged, we were in the Vietnam War, Bobby Kennedy had just been assassinated, as Martin Luther King Jr. before. The civil rights movement was well under way. The cold war was very chilly indeed.

And we were talking about how the rapture was going to take place.

The decades for almost a hundred years before that were spent seeking the experience of entire sanctification. I know some lives were truly changed in material ways too--at least in the early years of the twentieth century. But the middle part of that century was inward turned, legalistic, and generally insignificant in terms of impact on the world.

So we have the beginnings of the Wesleyan Methodist Church with regard to slavery and later women and we have the changing of lives in the early part of the twentieth century and the trickle thereafter.

I wondered last night if we were about to do something more worthy to be put in the annals of the universal church last night. It has been an unexpected conference for me.

General Conference 4: Major Decision on Membership

Aside from electing JoAnn Lyon as General Superintendent, the major decision of the conference was in favor of modifying some rules on church membership. My denomination has wrestled with this issue for years and, although I believe once again it has made the right decision, this is an issue that begs for further clarity and refinement.

The issue, in my opinion, is the recognition that there is a difference between the particulars of Wesleyan identity and the particulars of Christian identity. On the one hand, it is perfectly appropriate for the Wesleyan Church to have a distinct identity with distinct beliefs and distinct practices. We believe in victory over sin. We don't drink alcohol. The universal church needs parts of the body to emphasize various pieces of the Christian puzzle more than others.

But there are also Christians who attend our churches who have, for example, a different definition of sin and a different understanding of Christian theology. And there are people who are every bit as holy as any Wesleyan who has ever lived, who drink alcohol in moderation and do so in full obedience to every word of the Bible on the subject.

The search for wisdom these last years is to recognize fully that we must affirm without reservation the equal spirituality of those in the last paragraph to us without negating the importance of our distinct voice among Chrisendom.

The resolution was to require "covenant" membership of ministers, board members, trustees, delegates, nominating committee members, lay leaders, Sunday School superintendents, etc. At the same time, community members can vote on all issues presented to the local church except votes on the reception of covenant members.

A key amendment--a compromise that helped the resolution pass--was the removal of a requirement for all local churches to recognize community membership and community members from other churches. It remains the prerogative of local churches to decide whether they will use the category or not.

Drinking was clearly the focal issue here. Can we have people in our congregations who drink voting on all church matters except the reception of covenant members? For churches with community membership, the answer is now yes.

P.S. Student membership is back (formerly called junior membership in days of yore)!

General Conference 3: I continue to be proud.

I continue to be proud of my denomination's maturity today, although I am sympathetic to those who watched some of our core traditions disappear today.

1. The new special directions say nothing about social dancing. In short, there is now nothing in the Wesleyan Discipline that forbids participation in dances. Since there is nothing in the Bible against dancing per se, it was always a somewhat bizarre part of our history. It is one of those traditions that does not clearly connect to morality. In fact, I would suggest that the prohibition was more of a hindrance to the gospel that makes our tradition look cultishly strange to those with whom we might want to draw toward Christ.

This is the right decision, although I deeply respect those who find the decision disconcerting.

2. The statement on the Lord's Day was amended not to specify comments on buying and selling on Sunday. This is also a major change. It is an appropriate change, however, for two reasons. First, the New Testament never equates Sunday with the Old Testament Sabbath and it explicitly in two places condemns those who would insist on Sabbath observance (Romans 14:5-6, which was brought up, and Colossians 2:16).

Secondly, very few in the Wesleyan Church follow this statement and those few have no chance of convincing the rest to change their mind. It is simply bad policy to have a rule on the books that everyone ignores. It trivializes the ones that everyone does consider important.

Again, this was the right decision, although I deeply respect and want to value those who believe they lost something very important today.

3. The traditional legalistic and prescriptive element of the church tried to assert itself several times. There was an amendment to specify "taking the LORD's name in vain" as prohibited. This amendment was voted down. Frankly, that would be included within the words "immoral and profane language" that was added.

Of course the OT "taking of the name in vain" had nothing to do with swearing but with not keeping vows made in the name of YHWH. Whether the delegates knew this or not, I am relieved that we did not end up with a statement in the Discipline on this score that reflects a lack of understanding.

There was also an attempt to remove the word "excessive" so that the special directions would say not to watch media that is violent. Again, wisdom prevailed as the word was changed to "the gratuitously violent." It was rightly recognized that movies like "The Blood Diamond" are violent but about serious world issues.

I am very sympathetic to those who feel they lost on these sorts of issues today. But I believe the church has won. These were the right decisions. Some outsiders may find these sorts of discussions strange and preposterous. How could you even be debating these things? How bizzare and insular a world!

Chalk it up that Wesleyans treat their faith very seriously. All the same, I'm proud that wisdom has won out on these things today.