Electing Gen-X delegates
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Guy Williams has an insightful post over at Guy's Mental Wanderings about electing younger delegates to Genearal Conference. With a lot of talk - especially in the Methoblogosphere - about electing young adult delegates, Guy wants us to take a step back and ask some important questions about how we go about making choices.
For starters, Guy suggests that age should not be a determining factor. That is, he does not want to elect a young delegate just because that person is young. He wants delegates who represent faithful views, with regards to the doctrine and missional priorities of the church. He also wants to elect strong leaders, which may or may not correlate with a certain age range.
I think Guy's views are right on. I have been supportive of electing younger delegates to General and annual conferences. In fact, not long ago, I wrote a column specifically supporting the selection of younger delegates to annual conferences, as a way of familiarizing young adult laity with United Methodist polity and encouraging them to become involved in leadership. But Guy is right in insisting that age cannot and should not be a determining factor. As much as the UMC needs the energy and insight that young leadership brings, it needs truly faithful leadership even more.
So what does that mean for the push to elect younger delegates? It is still very important. But potential younger delegates should be put under the same scrutiny as their older counterparts, so that they will be elected for who they are and what they represent, not just how old they happen to be.
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 9:01 PM
13 Comments:
tennessee conference folks can vote for a faithful gen-x leader.. &:~)
Thanks for linking and chiming in, Andrew.
Incidentally, Gavin (here, here, to your nomination, by the way!), I think that younger lay persons have more potential for inclusion in the delegation that clergy. The dynamics of the two groups are such that the clergy all have a sense of who is where and what they've done or are doing. But the lay delegates--many of whom change yearly--are not only voting in light of a career record, but in many ways, primarily in light of what they have done very recently or are doing at present. I'm not sure if I'm articulating this well enough. But I would join Andrew in promoting congregations' selecting younger delegates to annual conferences because (for one thing) those who are exceptional leaders and potential leaders would make a great pool from which to draw in selecting General Conference delegates.
Said differently, clergy and laity build different-looking resumes for GC delegate selection. Because of this, there is greater opportunity for younger laity to be selected for GC, if they are sent from their churches...
We've begun a push here in the PNW to make room for at least one under 40 clergy delegate. And, though this began as a movement for change (we, like many conferences elect the same folks over and over), it has become a movement that highlights call and communication as part of the election process in a way that our typical election doesn't. We younger clergy have been speaking with one another about the issues that touch our hearts and stir our spirits, why we believe that being a delegate might be a part of our call, and how we we might function as a member of our delegation. These conversations don't tend to happen among the clergy so we've submitted legislation to see if we can better discuss with one another our call and the issue of discernment as they relate to the delegation.
Peace
Katie
I certainly agree that younger church members need to be involved in all aspects of church leadership. However, age should NOT be a factor in selecting annual conference delegates.
Katie -
I'm interested in what you write about submitting legislation as a means to better discuss young clergy participation in the General Conference delegation. My own thought on legislation is that is typically stifles conversation rather than facilitates it (or at least polarizes conversation to the point that it doesn't look much like conversation anymore). Of course, I might be misunderstanding what you are talking about.
This is my first time checking out your blog, but I'm a huge fan of your articles in the Reporter. I've got to second you on the need for greater diversity in the age-cohorts of General Conference. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but I do think there are some huge kinks in the system regarding the nomination process as it relates to younger people. For instance, I was planning to run for GC this year through the Texas Conference, and I followed the online instructions that were posted on the txcumc.org. After turning in the forms, I come to find out that there's a whole host of correspondence that wasn't mentioned on the website and that my application was late and incomplete. When I asked about the conference about this, they said, all members of the conference received information via mail about the process. When I informed her that as a lay delegate to the annual conference, a supply local pastor, and a student at Perkins, I did not receive any such information, she responded, "we don't send information to seminary students." I kid you not. I inquired further and she said that I still had a chance to be nominated at the Texas Annual Conference. However, I will not be published in the conference journal as a nominee. I’m still discerning if this is the way to go.
Any thoughts or suggestions you have would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for all you do and God Bless.
Richard Newton
I'm at the house and since I don't have a Discipline on my nightstand, could someone check to see if there is anything in the section concerning GC Delegates that says we are encouraged to vote "include" people of different races, handicapped folks, and even people of all ages?
The reason I ask is because when I was on CCYM when I was in high school, we had a pastor who was one of the adult leaders who would, at just about every meeting, point out that we weren't in line with the Discipline because we didn't have one minority, handicapped person, etc. It was all right there in the Discipline (I'm sure, Andrew, I don't have to mention his name for you to figure that out).
So, the question is, "Is voting for younger delegates actually encouraged by the Discipline?"
Richard -
Because of the bureaucratic and process-heavy qualities of the UMC, I am not surprised at the troubles you have encountered. That is a problem not just for younger people wanting to serve as delegates, but for anyone who is relatively new to the process (whether young or old). It favors an "insider" system of people who are familiar with the Byzantine traditions or structures of many annual conferences. That is good, in some ways. In ensures that those who know a lot about the system will be the ones running it (and hence protects against radicals). But it is bad as well, because it is inherently resistant to reform. You have experienced that firsthand.
As for answers, I don't know that there are any really good ones. If you still want to stand for election, you will have to get creative if you want to have a shot at being selected. The secretary of the Arkansas Conference has been sure to point out in his communications to clergy that, if they didn't get their information in on time to be included in the pre-conference journal, they can still stand for election and campaign by printing their own materials. He has even volunteered to include them in conference packets if such a candidate will print up 1000 copies and get them to his office by a certain date. So there might be options for you in that area.
Matthew -
That's a good thought, but I don't think there is such an encouragement for selection of delegates to GC. In Par.12, article 1, of the Constitution, the criteria for the selection of delegates doesn't go any further than to stipulate that it will be 1/2 clergy and 1/2 laity, and that selection will take place in the annual conferences. Then article 3 describes how the ratio of representation will work. I'm looking at a 2000 Discipline, so I don't know if any of that has changed since then. But since this is in the Constitution, I am almost sure that it hasn't.
It would be nice to see young lay leaders in local churches become GC candidates. But regardless of who is chosen, I would posit that a grounding in Wesleyan theology should be a prerequisite for GC delegates.
I've encountered many people who are enthusiastic about building up the Church and the Kingdom of God, but are wholly unconcerned about what makes our denomination theologically distinct.
I'd love to see people elected to serve as delegates who are best suited to serve in the ways that are being discussed hypothetically. But politics are politics and biases exist.
Out West, we deal with people not electing YOUNG clergy because we're...YOUNG. There's a sense that young clergy have not "cut their teeth" yet and would therefore we would not serve the people of our annual conference well enough. Where I appreciate the conversation about being true to the process and trying to elect people because they'll go out and make a difference-- my question to you all comes down to something I've experienced first-hand-- while we want to not elect people based on age-- will you at least acknowledge that there ageism exists in the Church and it does influence elections? That's where the rub is for me...while I am not looking to be elected to GC, I am working to find the best possible young clergyperson to promote as a nominee-- who will represent us well AND happens to be under 40. We'll see how well that works in June!
Andrew, having attended Annual Conference in my Free Methodist conference in Southern California for the first time last year, I see similar issues at work in our traditions. There is a strong push and good follow through in my conference of identifying, empowering, and developing young leaders. We also have a very ethnically diverse conference. Moreover, even though my denomination official endorses women elders, we still lack many women in prominent leadership positions.
Last year when electing representatives to our General Conference, we still had a majority of middle-aged white males. This was disheartening to a degree, but I also realized that many of these were also the most seasoned and theologically astute. Maybe we should have - in both traditions - something like "Honorary Delegates" who go to conferences to learn and be apprenticed...
I don't know if this politicking goes on in any other Conference (and I'm sure it does) but up in New England, if there's not at least one person from every gender/ethnic background combination, there's hell to pay. As a young adult who was a floor nomination from my conference, I was surprised that I made it in to Jurisdictional by the skin of my teeth.
However, throughout the balloting process, there are speeches made about "we don't have a black/hispanic female" or "we have only one korean" etc...and young folks get left in the dust (I think primarily because no one thinks about us, but also because these speeches make most of us sick).
I know some conferences reserve a slot for youth and/or young adults, which doesn't really solve the problem. I'm agreed: younger delegates should be elected for the gifts that they bring, not the age that they are.
Post a Comment
<< Home