Reflections on a Town Hall Gathering
On Saturday, February 29, I had the opportunity to participate in a Town Hall meeting on the York River District focusing on the Protocol. A member of the leadership team for the Virginia chapter of the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) was present to represent the traditionalist perspective, and I was invited to represent the centrist and progressive viewpoints.
Prior to the town hall, the WCA leader and I discussed how best to present the Protocol. They had previously prepared a PowerPoint presentation for use in information session about the WCA; with relatively minor tweaks of that presentation we finalized a mutually agreed upon presentation of the PowerPoint that would be shared equally between the two of us.
About 150 laity and clergy gathered at Trinity UMC in Poquoson for the town hall meeting. Our shared presentation, and the responses of the gathering were generally quite friendly and amicable; what follows here are my personal reflections, insights, and concerns following that event.
At some time when I was presenting the PowerPoint, I mentioned that in addition to becoming part of a new Methodist denomination, the Protocol legislation allowed for a congregation to disaffiliate from the UMC and not join a new Methodist denomination. Immediately the WCA representative said that was not part of the Protocol. When I disagreed, we were soon at risk of a “he said, she said” moment, so while they continued with the PowerPoint presentation, I looked at the legislation to verify my understanding. When it was my turn to speak again, I pointed out to the gathering that indeed such a possibility was included in the proposed legislation, and cited the paragraph and page numbers in the legislation for their future reference. At that point, the WCA presenter confessed to me in a quiet voice that they had not read the legislation entirely. In my opinion they were also somewhat dismissive of the value of joining alternative Methodist denominations (e.g., Wesleyan Church, AME, AMEZ, CME, Free Methodists, Primitive Methodists) because they were not “like us.” I think personally it should be deeply concerning to church leaders at the Conference, District, and local church level that the WCA may not be presenting a fully accurate view of the Protocol in their meetings.
The WCA representative made the point on more than one occasion that congregations choosing to leave the UMC would not have to pay any apportionments after December 31, 2020. That is true only of congregations that announce their intention to depart the UMC by July 1, 2020. While the WCA representative did acknowledge that congregations choosing to leave the UMC would have to honor their financial obligations to the UMC until their departure date, in my opinion they downplayed the Protocol’s timeline allowing congregations to have until December 31, 2024 to discern whether to leave the UMC, and that such decisions do not have to be made immediately by local congregations.
In my opinion, the big selling points presented for leaving the UMC for a new Methodist denomination being organized under the auspices of the WCA were a) a congregation would own its own property, and b) apportionments would not be more than 5% of a church’s budget. That percentage for apportionments was compared to the approximately 25-30% currently asked of a local UMC. I noted that the majority of those apportionments in the UMC are for clergy pensions, hospitalization and related benefits, and wondered how the 5% limit was realistically possible; I don’t remember the WCA representative providing any significant response to that perception. It would be a question I’d want answered substantively if I was considering leaving the UMC. Surprisingly, nothing was mentioned about new ministry or missional opportunities that the new Methodist denomination could initiate; the benefits were solely smaller apportionments and congregational ownership of property.
During the Question and Answer period following our shared PowerPoint question, someone from the audience asked a question that led me to respond with a reference to deployment of clergy in the WCA-influenced new Methodist denomination. In my previous reading of the WCA draft Book of Discipline, and in a conversation with the WCA leader prior to the town hall meeting, it was my understanding that clergy would be deployed using a combination call/sent strategy. The WCA representative soon responded that that had not been fully decided, but was simply part of the draft document for the proposed Discipline. That aside, I questioned a) how clergy who were women and/or people of color would fare in the new denomination; b) how small churches in “less desirable” locations (e.g., isolated rural areas, multi-point charges, inner city settings, etc.) would secure the clergy leadership they needed; and c) if larger and more attractive congregations called their pastors while all other congregations received appointed pastors, would congregations with appointed pastors experience a “less than” perception of themselves.
To these questions, the WCA representative stated that knowing the leadership the WCA, they trusted the process to work because of their commitment to an inclusive denomination. But the WCA leadership in Virginia itself does not seem to be particularly inclusive. A review of the WCA Virginia homepage (http://wcaofva.org/vawca-council/) names 19 members of the leadership team. 80% of the officers are white men; nearly 60% of the entire Council is white men. Nearly 70% of the Council are clergy and a bit more than 30% are laity. It seems there is only one person of color on the Council, with no African Americans or Hispanic representation. Three of the 13 clergy on the Council are retired and a fourth will retire at this Annual Conference, and only two are women; of the five laity on the Council, one is a clergy spouse, one is a Deaconess working full-time in a local church, and two are Full-Time Local Pastors. Only one member of the Council is under the age of 35.
It was my perception that the WCA representative was promoting a spirit of urgency; my sense was that they thought it was best for congregations and clergy to act as soon as possible after General Conference. As Tom Berlin has said on numerous occasions, this is a time for leadership; in my opinion we need mature clergy and lay leaders who can cultivate a non-anxious presence in our congregations lest people rapidly rush off a precipitous ledge before fully discerning the consequences, costs and benefits of staying or leaving. Instead of moving quickly, now more than ever is a time for prayer, fasting, silent and holy listening across the church, and across the spectrum of our UMC family; we need to provide the blessed and calm assurance to people that regardless of whether we are traditionalist, centrist or progressive, there can be room for all of us as we seek to welcome all to Christ’s Table, mission and ministry in the UMC.
There is much to be developed and expanded upon in the WCA’s proposed Book of Discipline, which currently is less than 60 pages in length. The WCA representative simply invited the audience to “trust the process and the WCA leaders” even as the proposed BoD is unfinished and much is unresolved and unclear. As in any separation or negotiated settlement, there is wisdom in the adage to “trust but verify,” or as my mother often said less eloquently, “Be careful of buying a pig in a poke.”
I confess my sadness and disappointment at the small number of my clergy colleagues at the town hall meeting. At least a significant number of our laity indeed cares about the future of the UMC and the faithfulness and well-being of their respective congregations; they seem to be hungry for honesty, transparency, full answers, deeper understanding, and calm leadership. As a clergy person, I am convinced we need to be the leaders the church ordained us to be, to be the non-anxious presence reflecting the abiding Spirit of Christ who teaches, “Peace, be still” and who continues to speak through the still small Voice. To use the language of Stephen Covey (author of Seven Habits of Highly Effective People), what lies ahead is important work, but it is not urgent. Holy wisdom lies in knowing the difference, and responding with calm courage, obedience, and faithfulness.
David Hindman is living in glorious retirement in Williamsburg, VA. While he gladly served local churches, the majority of his active ministry was in higher education settings, as United Methodist campus minister at the Wesley Foundation at The College of William and Mary, and as Lead Pastor at Duncan Memorial UMC on the campus of his alma mater, Randolph-Macon College.