pokes: Standing Behind Principle

Standing Behind Principle

I find it admirable when people are willing to stand behind their convictions. It's not necessary that I agree with those convictions. I might even think those convictions are stupid. But I do admire the principled fortitude which says, "This is what I believe, and I'm going to act accordingly."

Our denomination has had a continuing debate about alcohol. We are currently a total abstention church--if you have even one sip of wine at a family gathering, you can't be a United Brethren member. I don't agree with that stand--it goes well beyond what the Bible requires. But there are people who do believe strongly in that stand, and both their words and their actions undergird it. If we change the stand, the true believers will leave. I can respect that.

My alma mater, Huntington College, has been engaged in a debate for the past several years over a professor who is a leading proponent of a controversial doctrine called Open Theism. The faculty strongly supports him. I hear of threats, by some, to leave if this professor is forced out. They believe so strongly in academic freedom and other issues surrounding this controversy, that they couldn't in good conscience stay at Huntington College if this professor is axed. Well, the Board of Trustees took action to release this professor. Will those faculty members follow through? I will respect those who do, indeed, leave. They are standing behind their words and convictions. I admire that. For others--well, I guess it wasn't such a big deal, after all. Just words.

Our denomination is looking at doing away with the regional conference structure we have used since 1810 (when we first had multiple conferences). This is a big deal. And I've discovered a huge disconnect between what some people have said, and how they are now acting.

In the discussions about joining the Missionary Church, many people condemned this as a purely top-down thing, that we were ignoring the grassroots. But that was not the case. It started at a high level, but included a study committee with people from various conferences, the conference superintendents were brought into the discussion twice, the National Board needed to authorize a referendum to continue the discussions, we held a host of information meetings in local churches and regional settings, and then the whole membership voted on the issue. That's not top-down decision-making.

But we are now on the verge of a top-down decision of unprecedented scope. And the people who protested before are now being silent—probably because they may get what they wanted.

In February, the US National Board heard a presentation on behalf of UBHope (which has now disbanded). It included these words in support of grassroots decision-making: "We believe that participatory leadership is essential....Our problem has not been a lack of vision, but a lack of ownership and participation at the grassroots....This time, the United Brethren people have to be an integral part of the solution....We have said repeatedly that the process by which we make decisions is at least as important as the product of that process; or, put another way, that our character is revealed as much through the context of our decision-making as through the content....This change will allow us to spend some time looking at this issue from a broad-based and comprehensive viewpoint, instead of rushing into a solution before proper analysis. It will also involve non-leaders and non-decision-makers in the creation of the solutions, and thus provide the opportunity for ownership of the process."

At the same meeting, the National Board set in motion steps to implement a structure close to what UBHope had been advocating. Did anyone point to the words above and say, "Wait. We need to get more grassroots input and ownership." No. Those stated convictions and principles, clearly, were not held deeply enough to influence behavior.

And so, here's where we are. We set a plan in motion on Valentines Day to eliminate a 200-year-old structure and replace it with something else. We're not running it past the conferences, not giving local pastors and laypersons the chance to digest the idea, help shape it, gain a sense of ownership. We'll have proposals ready around the beginning of May, and seven weeks later, the National Conference will vote on them. It only takes a simple majority to make these changes official. Just 33 votes out of 65 delegates.

Four months of talk and 33 votes—that's all it will take to radically revamp our whole way of doing things. Has there ever been anything more top-down? But the people who previously blasted us for being top-down regarding the Missionary Church initiative are okay with this.

Like I said, I admire when people stand behind their stated convictions and principles.

Posted on March 22, 2005 06:56 PM| Permalink

Post a comment