***I'm keeping this post at the top for a few days to encourage some much-needed responses. Please comment! I really need feedback!***
Last week I asked you about your thoughts on the United Methodist Book of Resolutions. With the exception of ~c. and Andy B. (thank you!), most of you mentioned something about tossing the book out altogether. I understand your frustration! The Book has grown over the last several quadrenniums. It is also difficult to use sometimes – hard to find what you’re looking for, and hard to know how to use it if you don’t know what you’re looking for.
However…I don’t think the Book of Resolutions is going anywhere anytime soon. And I wouldn’t want it to. I think we have a proud heritage of social justice advocacy in the Untied Methodist Church, and the Book of Resolutions, to me, represents that people of faith have something to say about what is going on in the world.
That said, I need your help. My question comes to you out of a particular need. At General Conference in 2004, a petition was passed directing the General Board of Church and Society to create a task force, composed of members from pertinent general boards and agencies, to examine the Book of Resolutions and make recommendations about format, length, publishing, mediums of distribution, etc. I’ve been asked to chair this task force, and things are getting underway. The petition was broad in its scope, meaning that we can address any aspect of how the Book of Resolutions in put together and distributed.
Frankly, the task is so broad that it is hard to know where to begin. That’s why I’m seeking input from you all. So let me ask some more specific questions about how you might change the Book of Resolutions, assuming that we are not doing away with it! Please feel free to email me your responses or comment below. (My apologies for the vagueness of some of these questions, and their open-endedness. This is just a starting point.)
Questions:
1) For what purposes (if any) have you used the Book of Resolutions in the last year?
2) For web-based or CD-Rom based versions of the BoR, what additional features would you suggest? (ie: hyper-texting) What might a DVD version look like?
3) What do you think about having a ‘set’ of Resolutions for each section of the Social Principles – like a 5 book ‘set’ of smaller books for individual use?
4) What guidelines would you put in place for submission of resolution petitions?
5) How do you think the Social Principles and BoR could do a better job of addressing the social justice concerns of the global church? Where are our documents too US-centric? How do we balance the need for words to guide us in our US advocacy while also speaking to the global nature of our denomination?
6) Should every resolution passed at General Conference go to the Book of Resolutions? If a passed resolution does not go into the BoR, where else might it be placed?
I may have more questions as the scope of the task force becomes clear. Thanks in advance for your help!
11 comments:
Beth, it's late and I am way behind on the sermon, so this will be short. Here are a few thoughts on the BOR, especially out of my context in being on the staff of the General Conference.
1) The Book of Resolutions is rarely used, mainly because folks don't know about it. There are actually some good teaching resources in there, but they are not often utilized.
2) The BOR is fairly useless as a printed document. Frankly, I think it should be free, although the UMPH will fight that because they do make some bucks from selling books. I personally think that it should be posted on the web, and that the Board of C&S should be required to develop curricula that is linked to each resolution, encouraging the teaching role of this document.
3) The thought of dividing the book by sections is interesting, although the current book does that (although no one really realizes that!).
4) I believe that the petitions process for all legislation at General Conference needs to be addressed. Certainly, I think that all petitions should be approved by some other representative body, be it an annual conference or a congregation, prior to being considered by the General Conference. As for resolutions, I tend to think that they need to be submitted and reviewed prior to the General Conference and that resolutions generated at the General Conference should be reviewed by a Resolutions Committee prior to being presented on the floor. If I were pope, I would also limit the number of resolutions offered by Boards and Agencies since they really have little effect on the church, since very few people know about them.
I also think that resolutions as a whole should be dealt with as a block, not included in the "regular" business of the GC. I think that it might be good to put them at the end of the legislative session, since resolutions generally have no financial impact, and are much more instructive than legislative.
5) I may get in trouble here, but frankly I think the notion of the Global Church is in fact a myth born out of a colonial mindset even though we live in a post-colonial world. Otherwise, we would not be attempting to have other countries "join us," but rather, we would be supporting the development of autonomous entities that reflect their own situation.
Here is the problem for me. The Central Conferences are able to have their own Books of Discipline that reflect their cultural settings. In example, the old BOD for the Congo used to say (I don't know if it still does) that monogamy was the ideal, but if one chooses polygamy, then treat all the wives well. That is a fitting provision given the context, but would be seen completely outside propriety here.
So, either we need to have regional/national Books of Discipline, or we don't. The "main" BOD/BOR are centered in American culture for they reflect an entity that has been an American phenomenon since the beginning. We are allowing international input into that document, but it must reflect the majority context unless we are willing to create a specifically American BOD (like the Central Conferences have) that deals with our unique context.
6) No, every resolution shouldn't go in the BOR, especially since resolutions are considered valid for quadrennia.
Frankly, I think there are things that should not be resolutions, but rather should be called "statements," and are offered to reflect the opinion of the current General Conference. These statements should be used for issues that are time-limited, such as an upcoming war or a boycott, and should direct the Secretary of the General Conference to communicate to every church these opinions.
I think here is how I would differentiate between the categories:
1) Statements. Represent the current opinion of the General Conference, and are valid for no more than 4 years. These deal with "acute" situations, and are less of a teaching tool on an on-going issue and more of an opinion on United Methodist thought on a particular topic.
2) Resolutions. Resolutions deal with on-going, systemic issues, and maintain a teaching role for the broader church. Resolutions should be used sparingly, and there should never be more than a single resolution on a specific topic. Resolutions should be tied directly to interpreting the mandates of the Social Principles, and should include legislation requiring some form of curriculum development on the issues being addressed by the resolution.
3) Legislation. Legislation is the binding law of the church, and is contained in the Book of Discipline. In this context, legislation should be introduced to suggest that the Social Principles are in fact legislative, nor educational. This may mean a smaller group of "binding and legal" social principles, and expanding the interpretive framework of resolutions.
One of the problems is explaining the difference between the Social Principles and and BOR. If the Social Principles are "instructive" as the BOD suggests, then there really isn't much difference in them and the BOR. It seems to me that their inclusion in the "main book" should suggest a greater weight placed upon those actions and teachings, but who am I to say.
Got to get to the sermon.
Jay
p.s. Feel free to call me if you have further questions.
jv
Hi Beth,
What is the word for when people and ideas start to come together in unison? ;) Anyway, I was working on formatting a text version someone else scanned in to a computer last night so that I can do research. I definitely was flabbergasted to find out that this document and the BOD were not made freely available to both the Church and society at large.
Being a very new Methodist, and having come from an upbringing in a very fundamentalist denomination, I am quickly overwhelmed with the complexity of its beliefs and structure involved. So as I embark on a project to write some potential resolutions under the direction of our minister it is welcome to see you bringing the subject up. Here are my initial impressions of the BOR and some suggestions:
1) The document should be made freely available in multiple computer formats that are searchable and otherwise facilitate research.
2) It is completely too large and encyclopedic. Some efforts should be made to filter the "conversation" that the book represents in a fair and balanced way. Inclusion of dissent in brief form should be part of the criteria for acceptance. Frankly I cannot swallow 80% of the resolutions.
3) Lexical and semantic analysis of the document should be included along with some statistical polling.
4) Where a resolution has the effect of modifying a paragraph of the most current issue of the BOD it should be made clear that it does. I have heard a great disparity of replies to my questions about these two volumes and how one effects the other in an official way. Many members simply think of the BOR as all talk with no official force, especially if they disagree on a specific subject that seems in dispute between the two.
5) I think it would be good to get outside academic reviews included in the final publication so as to get a sense of how we as a Church body are perceived by non-members. The reviews should offer constructive criticism and reflect a mix of support and opposition to the contents.
6) Market the BOR to the congregation better. If it reflects the conversation of the church it should at least be a part of our conversations in newsprint, etc.
Hi, Beth,
I hope these comments will not come across as negative in spirit. I certainly do not intend them as such. I merely want honestly to share my experience.
I've never looked up anything in the BOR. I've never owned a copy. I know I need the BOD, but I'm not sure I need the BOR. That may well be due to ignorance as to the purpose and function of the BOR. The church I am in presently has a copy on the shelf that I've never opened. I imagine that I'm not alone, but admit that I don't know for certain as I can't recall a conversation about church, theology, or ethics in which the BOR has come up.
I agree with Jay in his #5 comment.
Any electronic version of the BOR should be designed by a *good* Web designer with an excellent understanding of Web standards and a thorough appreciation of the importance of open formats.
...unlike the current www.umc.org designers, who have glopped up the site with all sorts of Flash, MS Word .DOC files, and other abominations. This may be good for padding their resumes with all the latest cool tech buzzwords, but it's not so good for usability and information access. I haven't yet nominated umc.org for the
webpagesthatsuck.com Site of the Day, but I've often been tempted.
Beth,
Unlike Guy, I have purchased one copy of the BoR in my 20 years of ministry. That was way back when I was first in the ministry and didn't know any better.
I realize that surveys are not always the best way to gather information, but would it not be helpful for your task force to have a realistic idea of how wide spread the use of the BoR is. I assume you can get sales figures from UMPH.
The questions you ask here are good, but I'm not sure the responses you get will represent the broad base of UM's. I also realize you have to start somewhere, and I appreciate you willingness to undertake what appears to me to be a nearly impossible task.
Beth,
I last purchased a BOR while in Seminary so that is prior to 1991. I have not opened it once since then and after several moves I have no idea where it is.
Another impression, which may or may not be correct, is that things got in the BOR that were more hot buttons of delegates but not likely to be found agreeable to the local congregants. The more controversial ideas get into the BOR to be part of the conversation but not binding upon us individually or as congregations. Whereas, the BOD is binding upon us.
Rev. Owen
1. I have used them several times, particularly when I was teaching a class on Stewardship. I have also used them for United Methodist Women’s programs. Yes, I am a nerdy pastor who actually cracks the book open and thinks the resolutions passed are important.
2. For a web-based or CD-Rom based version I would love to see the standard stuff – the ability to search based on topics, and links to related topics. Also it might be helpful to have a BoD & BoR combined CD-Rom (or DVD Rom) so that you can cross-reference BoD & BoR issues that are related.
3. As far as a set goes, that might be helpful, if there were study topics with questions and discussion suggestions for each of the smaller books. I think that might help encourage people to use the BoR to teach classes in their churches.
4. I happen to like that people feel they have a voice in our denomination. In many other denominations laity don’t have a voice or a decision to influence the tener of their denomination.
5. The global church issue is a tough one. We don’t want to be divided by geography, but the Social principles and the Resolutions we pass are often US-centric. As a western jurisdiction person I feel that as well. For example, they didn’t sell the pickles we were supposed to boycott on the west coast. Why couldn’t that resolution for boycott have been in the conferences/ jurisdictions where that issue was prevelant?
6. I think the answer to this is that we should do a “set” of books based on the social principle topics. Kind of like the quadrenial leadership book sets.
(Greetings from a random passerby...)
Like some others who have posted, I was required to purchase a BOR for UM Doctrine and Polity coursework. Had it not been mandatory, I don't know if I would have cared to actually pay good money for a copy. Then again, it's usually good for a laugh. On the whole, I would have been much happier to save the cash and just read what I needed to read on the Internet.
I agree with the other posters that the books of R&D should be posted to the Internet for general use. This would firstly expand the potential of either text to function in a non-linear way (cross referencing social positions to doctrinal standards, the sermons, the notes, for instance). Secondly, I believe that having our actual positions posted openly as opposed to leaving them generally tucked away in the strange species of bookstore known as 'Cokesbury' would be potentially valuable for the purposes of evangelism and also in times of controversy when people (clergy, laity, the media) need to be able to locate specific church doctrine quickly and easily.
In certain cases, we also need to avoid the problem of allowing people to think in a Da Vinci Code way about the BOR - as if it's the UMC's dirty little secret it would prefer be buried beneath Lake Junaluska rather than come to light to the shame of the conspirators. As it stands, we have all (or most) of the Works (of Wesley) available online without the 'interpretations' of the General Conference(s) to accompany them and to place them in the present congregational (or global church) context.
Online publication of doctrinal material would also accomplish (by a side road) a ministerial dream of mine: that everyone who joins or belongs to the UMC should be provided with copies of (at least) the BOD free of charge. Presently, it is quite simple (and cheap) for UMCom/UMPH to produce an electronic version of all of our materials that individual congregations can download and output onto CD/DVDRoms at the church sites. No production, packaging or distribution costs would even be required of the corporate entity.
Finally, one of the other posters mentioned a new classification for certain would-be resolutions. If indeed such a classification became the norm, and if in fact certain publications otherwise intended to stand for the full four years were to be produced with the same force in the 'between times' the choice to republish a printed copy of the BOR would be fiscally irresponsible - but if the primary context of the publication was the Internet, it would be simple and virtually free to keep the corporate body in the loop at all times.
I feel like I should also include a remark or two about congregational education in regard to the nature and purpose of these texts, and of the differences between the two. One has authority, and the other serves to simply document certain activities within the structure of the organization established by said authority. A lot of people, especially the more idealistic activistic sorts, tend to almost demand that the BOR be treated as if it had authority, even over and above the BOD. Were we to take full advantage of nonlinear media, we should also be careful to take the opportunity to increase the education of the church in a metatextual way as well, if that makes any sense.
I'm a seminarian who has only just cracked the pages of her first copy of the BoR.
(1) I grew up in the UMC and had no idea of this book's existence until seminary.
(2) I whole-heartedly agree that the BoR would fare better as a web resource in a hypertext format which demonstrated some of the complexity of the document. For instance, it could link with relevant BoD material with which it is in conversation (as another commentor has said) or link to other web resources of organizations with whom the UMC is connected and which are involved in the issues as hand (for instance, the WCC).
(3) I don't know that print versions of this book, however divided, will be particularly attractive or helpful. My suspicion is that folks trying to stay on top of global social justice concerns will be more and more habituated to electronic research.
(5) I wonder if the BoR isn't a US-centric document in the very nature of its univocal format. Jay's distinction between "statements" and "resolutions" is helpful. The univocal format we presently have does hold advocacy value in the case of "statements" addressing time-critical issues. We do well to have a unified denominational statement in these matters. However, the "resolutions" proper (addressing on-going systemic issues for which a guiding and teaching resource would be deeply valuable) provide only a monolithic voice (the US-centered lens) that doesn't very realistically represent the global and diverse nature of the UMC as we are or hope more and more to be. They certainly aren't functioning for many of us as a very compelling resource for local church education. If the two functions--statements and resolutions--were split up, might the resolutions involve a resource that presented not univocal statements but multiple voices and perspectives in dialogue (such as those leading up to the current BoR material)? Such a resource would not only offer a more realistic reflection of the gifts of perspective that the many peoples of the UMC are bringing but would also model the kind of ongoing, conversational engagement in which congregations could be involved, not stopping with BoR statements but using denominational material as a springboard for authentically engaging issues from their own contexts.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond, and best wishes in your task force work!
erm
Here in UMC Finland we send two reps (one clergy one lay ) to the central conference - but we don't hear much of what is going to be discussed (before or after) at least locally - so feel rather un-attached from it all to be honest.
and for the record we use the usual BoD but there are some local bylaws (eg we need to have charge conferences twice a year - by law - most elections and most work is done at the spring meeting -before the annual conference, but we have a second charge conference in the autumn to talk about the coming budget etc. Very time consuming, and draining but required by law.
One thing I'd like to see discussed well in the next general conf is funding for overseas seminaries and help for overseas churchs. as you probably remember a motion from the floor was carried last time to cut back this kind of funding and it happened so suddenly.
In Tallinn the main UMC church and the seminary was build by the UMC and for the UMC and is no way near to self- financing. (pastors salaries or heating :( Hard to believe it could be.
So I'd like to see a longer term stategy developed if the UMC really do want to be a voice in shaping Christianity abraod and raising up pastors and church leaders.
Not sure if this is at all the kind of thing you are looking for Beth- no idea what's in the resolutions.
delete if off the topic
Lorna
Beth,
I will try to be more helpful this time.
First, let me vent. The thing that bothers me is that the BoR is made more difficult to follow thanks to the various resolutions/statements by the Boards and Agencies of the church, not to mention the Annual Conferences, that sometimes contradict, or counter-balance the BoR.
Which brings me to the way in which I would find the BoR most useful. I would like to have the cross-referenced pages available, and that might be an Annual Event, or may have to be a web-update. This would help to see what is a GC resolution, versus a statement by a Board or Agency, or a resolution of an AC.
I guess the real question is what relevance do we want the BoR to have. The more widely published, commented on, presented the more likely I am to give it some credence. The real kicker is to have some Bible references for each, as they are supposed to be a tool to help us live out the scriptures (the resolutions that is)
Peace,
David
Post a Comment