In the days since the end of this momentous, specially-called, much-anticipated, session of General Conference, I have found myself reflecting on John Wesley’s call to engage in the process of Holy Conferencing. Wesley believed — as have I for most of my adult life -- that the movement of the Holy Spirit becomes known as Christians prayerfully and honestly engage one another in the process of discernment. I have found myself doubting whether that is true.
This is not simply because I am so discouraged by the outcome of the Conference, and our denomination’s continued exclusion of our LGBTQI sisters and brothers (although I do acknowledge my deep sorrow and embarrassment about our actions). I am also deeply discouraged by the process. Everything I have heard and read, reinforces the experience I had at the last General Conference in 2016: political maneuvering, allegations of bribery, expressions of racism and colonialism, homophobia, self-righteousness, jockeying for position, rampant displays of ego.
We can’t possibly hear the voice of the Holy Spirit because everyone has already made up their minds. Watching General Conference feels no different than watching Congress work: gridlocked, self-interested, game-playing. And maybe it shouldn’t be different: both bodies are filled with flawed, wounded, but redeemed children of God.
So I’ve been wondering about whether there is any truth in the idea of Holy Conferencing at all, and where I have seen it work. Largely, I have seen it work in smaller bodies — bodies that have deeper relationships and history together to draw on. I have seen it many times in the work of the local church, where people engage one another deeply and argue passionately, and see a possibility emerge from their debate that neither side had anticipated. I have seen it in family conversations where difficult decisions had to be made together. I have seen it in the work of non-profit Boards seeking to set a vision for their community or respond to a crisis. I have seen it in the work of our Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference Board of Ordained Ministry, where a high degree of consensus is so valued that people have to be willing to risk honesty and trust each other.
Maybe the problem is breadth and size? Maybe a body like General Conference (or Congress!) is simply too big to allow for true Holy Conferencing to happen? Maybe the differing cultural values are too great a barrier; maybe the vested financial interests are too significant; maybe the wounds are too deep? And maybe that argues for a governance model that is smaller and more decentralized, a denomination made up of a number of smaller affiliate bodies. Can Holy Conferencing happen on an Annual Conference level, or is that too big as well?
I don’t have answers to these questions and would welcome insight from others. But the last thing I have realized is that I — as an individual member of any discerning body — have a call (or invitation) to take a deep look at my own baggage and woundedness as I engage in the process of discernment. If I am to be part of any Holy Conferencing, the place to start is with the spiritual grounding and openness that I bring to the table myself. Of course, my openness and groundedness is no guarantee that that truly Holy Conferencing will happen -- I cannot control what anybody else brings to the table — but it is always the place where the work begins.