The Hendrix debate: a recap

I'm home from Annual Conference now, trying to get caught up after a very interesting few days in Hot Springs, Arkansas. I know I've spilled a lot of ink on this blog discussing the Hendrix issue over the past few weeks, but I wanted to share a few thoughts on the results of the debate that occurred Wednesday morning on the floor of the conference. After this post, I'll get back to my usual fare of Gen-X, church-related posts.

The debate on the proposed changes to the Hendrix charter took place the last morning of the Annual Conference session, but the preparations for that debate took up a lot of my time from Sunday evening through Tuesday night. (If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you can read the posts over the past couple of weeks to acquaint yourself with the issue).

I got some good advice on Monday morning from Dr. Rebekah Miles, an elder in the Arkansas Conference and a professor of ethics at Perkins School of Theology, who told me that if I had any expectation of winning the vote, I would need to build a coalition. That task fell primarily to Danny Redding-Rhodes and myself, who both came into the conference session as advocates of a continued strong clergy presence on the Hendrix Board of Trustees. What we found (partially to our surprise) was that there were a whole lot of folks at the conference - laity and clergy alike - who felt the same way. Some of them were people like us, i.e., young clergy types who graduated from Hendrix. But many of them were people like Beka Miles, who have been involved with the Annual Conference for much longer and who just couldn't understand the clergy trustees' reasoning in advocating for a diminished clergy presence on the Board.

So what I basically did on Monday and Tuesday was to talk to anyone who was interested about what a reduced church connection on the Board might mean for long-term relations between Hendrix and the Arkansas Conference. We also talked about a compromise resolution, that would either ask the Board to raise the total number of trustees or suggest that the 5 spots being debated would be reserved for clergy but could be drawn from around the connection (rather than just from the Arkansas Conference). I mostly did not have to seek out people to talk to; instead, they kept finding me! I'll admit that there were a few folks who seemed to side with the clergy trustees' position simply because they were respected, established voices in the Annual Conference. That was a little frustrating; I am an advocate of heeding the voice of wisdom and experience, I also don't think that it should be an excuse for shutting off reason.

When Wednesday morning came, the debate that happened was the liveliest moment in a session that was otherwise dominated by reports and presentations. Those of us who opposed the measure were given 3 speeches of 3 minutes each. Our speeches were made by the Rev. Fred Haustein (pastor of St. James UMC in Little Rock), Karen Millar (a layperson from FUMC in Searcy, AR, who has been a delegate to General Conference), and myself. The clergy trustees actually had 5 opportunities to speak in favor of the proposal: there were the 3 "pro" speeches, but they were sandwiched in the middle of a two-part presentation by the Rev. Bud Reeves, who was the clergy trustees' representative in arguing for the proposal. Following the speeches, Danny Redding-Rhodes moved that the vote be held by written ballot rather than by voice. He gave an eloquent explanation of why such a method was needed, which was primarily so people could truly vote their conscience (the bishop, after all, was one of the named supporters of the trustees' presentation and was mentioned in Bud Reeves' closing remarks). No one spoke against Danny's motion, and it passed by probably 85-90%.

After the votes were tallied, the trustees' proposal passed by a count of 338 in favor to 253 against. We did all we could, but in the end we just got beat. Thus, as clergy rotate off the Board of Trustees, the five newly-freed up positions will be filled in a much different way than before.

Overall, this was a very good experience for me. I learned a little more than I knew before about the politics of the Annual Conference, and I also got to experience about how Christians of goodwill can disagree and still remain friends afterward. I think that both sides of the debate truly attempted to go about the politics of the situation in a Christian manner, and that is very important.

Some final thoughts:

-- I had a few people tell me after everything was said and done that this debate was much different than previous Hendrix debates. In the past, the debate is usually between a 'pro-Hendrix' faction and an 'anti-Hendrix' faction, and it can turn quite vicious. The debate this year was really between two 'pro-Hendrix' groups, and many folks thought that the disagreement itself served as proof that there is still a lot of passion left for the Hendrix College-Arkansas Conference relationship. So in a sense, even the defeat of our efforts revealed a small victory. I hope that the passion for Hendrix will grow and will help keep Hendrix within the church's fold over the long term.

-- The debate would have been a lot closer if the 'anti-Hendrix' people in the Annual Conference had simply stayed on the sidelines and not voted. As it was, the clergy trustees' greatest allies in the vote were the very people who would like to see Hendrix completely disassociate from the church. (And yes, that ought to tell you something about the value of the trustees' argument that the charter change will actually strengthen Hendrix's UM connection). Take for instance this e-mail sent to me from an admitted 'anti-Hendrix' Arkansas pastor: "I voted with you although many in my group voted against. Their reasoning was that a diminished number of Arkansas clergy will separate us further from Hendrix and lead to our ultimate separation - which in their opinion (and mine to be honest) is a good thing. I think we have started down that road. Good effort though. I was impressed by your arguments. Many who voted against you were voting against a connection with Hendrix." Now that e-mail is simply remarkable to me. I hope the Hendrix folks realized how much they were pleasing their erstwhile opponents.

-- I learned that it is very, very difficult to oppose the powers-that-be in any situation like an Annual Conference session. The list of people on the Hendrix Board of Trustees who supported the charter proposal included the bishop, our current episcopal candidate, the director of conference ministries, two district superintendents, and a collection of some of the most respected large-church pastors in the conference. Heck, I respect those folks an awful lot myself! But though everything was conducted civilly and with an attempt at fairness, there were some subtle ways that our position was at a disadvantage simply because of who they are compared to who we are. That's just tough to overcome, when you are already working against the inertia that exists to vote with what the college wants to happen. I don't know the answer to this, except that it proves Beka Miles' advice about coalition building, and even when you do that it will often not be enough.

-- Politics, even church politics, is about a whole lot more than the arguments at hand. The arguments undergirding the charter proposal that the Board of Trustees was pushing were not particularly good arguments. In fact, they were largely weak. We were able to answer each one of them, such that they were either exposed as flimsy in and of themselves, or else they were easily answered with reference to ways Hendrix's goals could be met without reducing the number of Arkansas clergy trustees. And then we proceeded to get beat by 85 votes. All the stuff I mentioned above had a bearing on that final vote, plus plenty else. Making good arguments is key, but it ain't enough by itself.

-- The relationship between Hendrix College and the Arkansas Conference could have a very bright future. I'm no doom-n-gloom guy, regardless of the fact that my position got beat. Do I think the charter revision will hurt the college-church relationship down the road? Yep. I would be pretty foolish for having taken the stand I did if I didn't think that. But the clergy trustees I spoke to both before and after the debate are honestly convinced that the connection could grow in new and exciting ways, regardless of how many clergy trustees there are. Who knows? Maybe they're right. And in the meantime, the work that campus ministers like the Revs. Wayne Clark and J.J. Whitney are doing at Hendrix will continue, and that's a good thing.

So for those of you who have been wondering when this seemingly interminable debate would terminate, that time has come. I admit I've been dealing with some real feelings of let-down and depression over the past two days, but that will pass. It's time to move on.

[Note for conspiracy theorists: If you want to read something that will drive your conspiracy radar nuts, check out the online interview with Alex Khalaf, this past year's president of the "Hendrix Humanist Association," in this Secular Student Alliance newsletter from October 2007. In it, Mr. Khalaf reports that a Hendrix Board of Trustees member sent him an e-mail congratulating him on the founding of his atheistic organization and wishing him good luck in being able to "advance the cause of enlightenment" in the Hendrix community.]