Rev. Dr. Don Messer is a native of the Dakotas Conference born in Kimball, South Dakota. He is a noted United Methodist theologian, author, former president of Dakota Wesleyan University and Iliff Seminary. He is known for his work to combat world hunger and HIV / AIDS. He is attending General Conference (GC) as a speaker, visitor and advocate for The United Methodist Global AIDS Fund.

Messer was asked about his view of the impact of GC and the state of the Church.

“It is a time to be hopeful but not optimistic. Let me make the distinction. Archbishop Tutu said in the midst of Apartheid, when the things were the darkest in South Africa and violence could break out, nothing good could happen, he remained a man of hope.  He said that Christians are prisoners of hope. That is just our nature to be hopeful. That does not mean we are optimistic because we do not really know how things are going to evolve.

The Church is going through a hard time right now.  We do not seem to understand John Wesley who said, “If your heart is as my heart, give me your hand.”  We will worship together but we are not really able to join hands together.

The Catholic spirit or the universal spirit that John Wesley talked about is missing.  I read his sermons again recently. He said he disagreed with some people on the way they did baptism, certain forms of government, they were wrong as far as he was concerned but, Wesley did not think that was not the essence of the Gospel.

Until we learn to work together, on issues such as same-sex marriage, gay ordination, we will just continue to be polarized. We will see what happens in the Church. Dakotans have always had a “live and let live attitude"—we have respect for our neighbor, we understand.  That is the best of Dakota and that the way Christians are.  We learn to disagree and love. Things have their low times and high times.

Rev. Dr. Don Messer, co-chair of The United Methodist Global AIDS Fund, Executive Director Center for the Church and Global AIDS, past president of Dakota Wesleyan University.

Key legislative action at the General Conference 2016 included the reaction of Rule 44.  The Commission on General Conference recommended Rule 44 at the request of the 2012 General Conference, which sought an alternative process to Robert’s Rules of Order for dealing with particularly complicated and contentious legislation. The commission’s aim was to use small groups to give all delegates a chance to weigh in on selected petitions.  

Here are some reactions from the Dakotas Conference delegation about Rule 44. 

"I was disappointed that Rule 44 did not pass. As one of the small group leaders, I know there were great flaws in the preparation and organizational process. That being said, I saw God at work in beautiful ways in the guided conversation time on Wednesday afternoon. What started out a bit chaotic ended up being a taste of grace. There was a lot of discussion about not being ready. But it is hard to be “ready” for hard conversations.  Sometimes you just have to awkwardly step forward in faith and believe that the Spirit will work through it, not because of our preparedness but because of our faithfulness."

Rev. Rebecca Trefz, Dakotas Conference clergy delegate

"I do not believe the vote against Rule 44 was a vote against the need for Christian conferencing.  Christian conferencing is not a group facilitation process; it is a means of grace that Wesley used in the context of the class meeting. Trying to enact Rule 44 under the guide of Christian conferencing, I believe actually demeans such a powerful means of grace."

"As practiced Rule 44, as a method of small group conversation, in our committees it became quite apparent that much logistical work needs to be well prepared ahead of time. We lacked appropriate translation, had only two trained facilitators in a group of 80 persons and insufficient time for all members of the small groups to be heard. Do I believe we need to have small group conversations around difficult issues? Absolutely.  Should we practice Christian conferencing as a means of grace?  Most certainly.  Christian conferencing is a spiritual discipline, not a parliamentary rule."

Jodi Cataldo, Dakotas Conference lay delegate

“Rule 44 may have been an idea developed with good intentions but any new process proposed to decide such a controversial topic as this would be met with some suspicion.   As I heard the concerns expressed on the conference floor I was not surprised that it was voted down”

Rev. Roger Spahr, Dakotas Conference alternative clergy delegate

“The first three days of General Conference has had a lot of discussion and debate regarding the rules, and especially Rule 44 which would have allowed for a group discernment process. I supported Rule 44 because I believe that it would have allowed for engaging conversation and active listening about some of the difficult issues facing the General Conference. There was a lot of uncertainty about how the conversations would go, issues around language barriers, and if the facilitators were prepared to lead the discussion groups. I don’t know if the discernment groups would have worked out or not, but it would have been a chance to try something new, and maybe bridge a gap between people on opposite sides of the legislation. Also, keep in mind that if Rule 44 was adopted, that does not mean it would have to be used. As Bishop Palmer said on Tuesday during the Episcopal Address, “We cannot be afraid to GO when Jesus already GOES ahead of us.”

Matt Bader, Dakotas Conference alternative lay delegate

Links:

World Global Aids Fund

Center for the Church and Global Aids

Rule 44 UMC