The Great “Cell Phone Controversy” at General Conference

Had a meeting tonight at a church to talk about General Conference and, yes, we talked of the lengthy discussions about sexual preference/orientation. (I hope you’ve noticed that what the word one uses here, preference or orientation shapes or is shaped by how one feels about homosexual practice. If one feels that homosexuality is a choice, then one would use preference. If one feels that it’s not a choice but ingrained in someone’s DNA or something, then orientation is the word.) We also talked of the “liberal”/”conservative” biases and how the church will have to deal with representation as we take in more conferences from Africa or other parts of the world. We’ll have to decide how much of a voice places like Alaska are going to have in the church.

The conversation tonight made me think of the great “cell phone controversy” at General Conference. In short, conservative/renewal groups gave cell phones to members of African delegations. The Africans were happy to have cell phones, as most of their American brothers and sisters had them (although I heard they were not happy that they were not able to call outside the US to talk with families or their ministries–don’t know if it’s true. The evangelical/renewal folks said they were just being nice. The “liberals” thought this was all a bribe since the cell phones included a list of conservative persons to consider for the United Methodist Judicial Council…our “Supreme Court” if you will.

Here’s where you can read some more about it. You can read the official United Methodist News Service Report where it says:

My hope is that the white leadership of the church would be mindful of the actions in light of the history of exploitation of people of color in this church. I hope they would not willingly engage in any sort of behavior that would undermine the humanity of people of color whether they are in the United States or other countries. This action of giving cell phones to buy or manipulate people can be interpreted as a return to that sort of racist behavior.

You can read what Jim Winkler (General Board of Church and Society) says in the official blog of the reconciling ministries network:

A U.S. pastor and former missionary personally witnessed a coalition representative instruct Central Conference delegates to vote against the “Worldwide Nature of the Church” report. The same representative then took credit he did not deserve for obtaining funding for theological education in Africa.

I watched a staff person of the “Reform and Renewal” coalition sending text messages to African delegates during a legislative committee session. The activity was so blatant marshals requested the cell phone be put away.

You can see what Mark Tooley, of the Institute for Religion and Democracy has to say here:

“Why are liberal church elites in the U.S. so intimidated by the empowerment of African and other international delegates? What are they so afraid of?

“When Africans speak their Biblical convictions, threatened liberal church bureaucrats call that ‘manipulation’.

“Patronizingly, United Methodist bureaucrats assume that African and Filipino delegates can be bought with a cell phone.

“These clueless church elites don’t understand the obvious. America evangelicals and Global South evangelicals support each other because of their common faith.”

And you can read another conservative slant here. What is most disconcerting about this last one is the comments below the post. The following is, perhaps the most colorful:

The so-called “leaders” of our denomination continue to show their TRUE, “PINKO” selves and I know that I’m not the only “MEMBER” (all my LIFE! 65 YEARS!) that is so FED UP with these COMMUNISTS INSPIRED “know nothings”. I’m a Viet Nam vet, IF IT MATTERS, and would gladly debate ANY issue with ANY of our “educated” PIMPS in “leadership” positions. Want ot “GROW” our membership ??? Dump these DUMMIES now in control !

In truth, I looked to see if I could find a liberally-slanted comment that was quite so “colorful.” I did not find one, but I’m sure it exists out there. Colorful language is not just a conservative trait.

Here’s my take. The cell phone plan, if it had not included a list of Judicial Council Nominees, would have blown over. It just looked bad…like votes were being bought. And while some who received were grateful there were others who felt like it was a bribe. And, it looked “bad” enough that I think some persons in the Methodist Middle rebelled a little and it might have cost the reformers their Judicial Council nominees altogether. The four candidates put forward by the progressives/moderates won their elections, even though, looking at the main voting blocks of the conference, they should not have done so. I believe the progressives/moderates were pleasantly surprised none of the renewal candidates won.

More troubling, to me, is how this is being communicated and being played out — not just at conference but afterwards as well. “Liberals don’t support Africans because they are so conservative.” “The conservatives were only doing this to buy votes.” It’s just like two sides throwing stones at each other. I think both perspectives are too simplistic and it’s going to be very difficult to look at this issue from any other point of view.