District Conference

Just back from District Conference in Waterloo, IA. It was probably the most dismal conference I have ever attended. On Friday night there was an insight on biblical authority; it actually was the highlight of the conference. Craig Alan Myers of the Brethren Revival Fellowship and Rick Gardner from Bethany Theological Seminary (COB seminary) answered a series of scripted questions about the COB paper on biblical inspiration. They did a good job highlighting the main points of the paper and of outlining their differences on biblical interpretation. The key insight came when they talked about how they approach interpretation. Craig talked about Jesus creating clear boundaries of who is in and out and what is acceptable and not, in essence giving priority to the Gospel of John's understanding of Jesus. Rick talked about the way Jesus had reverence for his scriptures, the Hebrew scriptures, but then saying at numerous points "you have heard that it was said" (in the Hebrew scriptures) but I say to you... This position comes from giving greater weight to the synoptic gospels. This, Rick's position, is a key hermeneutical (the method we bring to interpretation) principle of progressive scholarship. We do what Jesus did. We have reverence for the scripture as we have it, but where we have new insight that wasn't available then we say that God is still speaking and we know some things better today than it was possible for those living in biblical times to know. I thought both Craig and Rick did a good job.

It was all down hill from there. My overriding impression of sitting among the district representatives from various churches is of being in the midst of a dying church. Very few young people were present; heck, very few people my age were present. They, or at least some of them, are worrying themselves to death about what is happening up here in the twin cities while their churches in Iowa are dying. It's like Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

The most controversial action item addressed by the conference had to do with a recommendation by the district board that we as a district reaffirm our support for the position papers adopted by the denomination's annual conference with an added piece that said that the district recognized the fact that we have individuals and congregations who disagree with elements of these positions papers and it is not the intent of the district to try to censure or punish these congregations (that would be us) because of these differences.

The district board has spent more than a year wrestling with the unhappiness of several congregations about us and Common Spirit, the group meeting in Minneapolis. The board itself has been deeply divided and this action item was their way of addressing the concerns of these congregations as well as recognizing the fact that we have diversity in our district and strong support from other individuals and congregations for us.

Naturally the board's response did not satisfy the conservatives. They want boundaries; they want an end to talking and action; they want censure or punishment of those who don't agree with them.

So a motion came from the floor to affirm the first part of the action item that reaffirms our district's support of denominational position papers, but to drop the second part that recognizes our differences in the district. This motion passed with fairly strong support. And the conference was over.

My own sense in the district is that there is not strong support for the views of the conservative faction. So why did the amended motion pass? In part because it was the last item on the agenda and the delegates were tired and worn out from the emotional weight of the conference. We had just finished a lengthy and painful discussion about the Cando congregation's decision to withdraw from the denomination. I for one, had little interest in making a counter argument; I just wanted to go home. In part I also think that the stakes were not very high in simply affirming the denominational position papers. (The papers themselves acknowledge the fact that we are divided over key issues and call for conversation and understanding. There was no action being taken to put the hammer down on anyone.)

What does it all mean? Well, for us at Open Circle it doesn't mean very much. We will continue doing what we have been doing - being a thriving, growing liberal Christian church engaged in active mission in our community. For the district, I suspect it means a continuation of struggle over these issues and more numerical death in most district churches. More than likely the conservative faction will be back soon trying to get the district board to take action against us.

Many of these conservative churches have been withholding money from the district because of their unhappiness with the actions of the board. It will be interesting to see if in light of this "win" they resume their financial support. Or will they continue to hold the district ransom until they get their way?

Rhonda Pittman Gingrich spoke from the floor saying that she has been proud of the way the Northern Plains District has attempted to create a dialogue around the issues that divide us. We have had a special meeting to talk about homosexuality, moderated by denominational leadership; we invited Craig Alan and Rick into the district to help us talk about biblical inspiration. We have a meeting coming up to talk about the lordship of Jesus and our differences in understanding over this issue. Rhonda is right; the district board is to be commended for their efforts to bring us together to talk about our differences. This is something that should have been happening all across the denomination.

It appears to me after this conference that the conservatives in our district are not interesting in talking. They are sure that they have the truth and they want to attempt to force the district to support their position. Or else they will take their marbles and go home.