Monday, April 30th - Anthony Tang
“The Politics of Proportionality and Fairness” or “Why I’m Not Impressed When You Tell Me Yours Is Bigger”
Let’s pretend there are three kids: youngest, biggest, and oldest. Cool Dad brings home ice cream and wants to be “fair.” The oldest says, “I’m the oldest and have more responsibility, therefore, I should get the most, the biggest should get less, and the youngest should get the least.”
But, the biggest kid says, “What? I’m the biggest. My body requires more calories than the others. I should get the most. The other two are smaller. They can split the rest.”
Then the youngest says, “Am I not an independent human being with rights and privileges no less than the others? At minimum, we should all get the same, but realistically, you’ll give me more than the others because I’m the youngest!”
Unless you’re having flashbacks of childhood resentments and projecting yourself into my hypothetical situation, you can probably recognize that each child makes what sounds like a reasonable argument of what is fair. That’s because “fair” is a loaded and subjective term used to appeal to someone’s emotions in order to wield force over another.
There are different delegates at Annual Conference who are arguing for fairness. Here’s their rationale.
- The South has lots of members, shouldn’t the South have more representation on committees, boards, and at General Conference than the West (for example), which is losing members?
- The South gives more total dollars than the West (for example), shouldn’t the South have more representation?
- Looking at the world-wide church, the fastest growing area of United Methodist members is in Africa; shouldn’t Africa have a larger proportion of members? On this last point, delegates have even gone so far as to say that anything otherwise would be racist! (See ADCA, page 361, petition #20626).
That all sounds so reasonable, doesn’t it? Until you realize that it’s all a diversion tactic. (In logical fallacies, I think this is called a “red herring” when you use a rhetoric fish to lead the hunting dogs on the wrong path.)
First, membership numbers are a measure of who joined years ago. If you have a church with 400 member on the rolls and 80 in worship, should it have twice as much representation than a church with 200 in membership and 400 in worship? That would be foolish and yet that’s what they’re trying to argue.
If you take average worship attendance and divide it by the lay membership which gives a proportion of active worshippers to membership roles, here’s what you get:
- Western: 0.515
- North Central: 0.477
- Southeastern: 0.409
- Northeastern: 0.385
- South Central: 0.368
In other words, the West has the highest participation per membership role, and while the South does great in membership, those people aren’t all coming to church. (See http://lukewetzel.wordpress.com or if you really want me to dig up all the actual GCFA stats, let me know and I can ask Scott Brewer to provide them.) Now, my retort does NOT make the argument that the South isn’t big—it is big—but this isn’t about “fairness”—it’s about power and a desire to use any formula to justify that power.
Second, at the Western Jurisdiction meeting on the morning of the 29th, we discussed that per capita giving to General Conference apportionments is the highest in the West. (Again, if you want me to dig these up, I’ll ask for the reference at the next meeting and/or I’ll ask Mr. Brewer.)
Third, let me come back to the Africa issue because this is going to be a big deal.
Please don’t take what I’m saying as an attack on the South. I have no beef with the South or Southerners. I have a beef with the Good News Movement that’s attempting to use the South as a pawn for fundamentalism and theological rigidity.
You see, back in the 1980’s (or so), gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (hereafter referred to as LGBT) people came out of the closet (some of them admitting they were gay and losing their families and others admitting they were Christian and losing their friends). Both Christians and Queers agreed that you couldn’t be both LGBT and Christian, and yet courageous people stood up and said, “Um, actually I think you can.”
But, since most others thought they were either confused or just really happy Christians, it took some time to actually believe them. Still, at every General Conference since the early 90’s, there they were, trying to break through the bar of the plenary session (although truth be told, there were and are many already there, just look for the really happy delegates).
Two things happened in response. First, the Good News arm of the church (with some leaders in the South) fought back by getting anti-LGBT legislation passed, like forbidding the blessing of loving couples and restrictions on how money may be spent.
Second, the country has changed. In 2011, polls by Pew Research indicate that support of gay marriage has risen to 45% and Gallup and ABC put support of gay marriage at 53%. In addition, because support of gay marriage is much stronger in younger generations than in older generations, it is likely that the balance is going to swing much stronger toward eventual legalization in the whole U.S.A.
Therefore, the Good News arm of the church enacted a new strategy. They recognized (a) that the tide was shifting in the US toward full acceptance, (b) that people in the west tend to be much more progressive and liberal, (c) that friends of theirs in the South want to keep it more conservative, and (d) that Africans are too worried about famine, malaria, AIDS, war, etc. to care about something no one talks about in Africa. Therefore, proportionality! They thought, “If we argue for fairness, we can strip the west of all of its liberal delegates and voices, and stack the deck in favor of Southern conservatives and African delegates who are going to take another ten years at a minimum before they’ll want to begin talking about homosexuality.” They used Southerners and the African delegation to wield force over progressive voices.
So, where does that leave us? First, this is why General Conference often sounds either homophobic, racist, or both. It’s because of a false dichotomy/choice/scenario created by these Good News leaders and sustained by liberals who don’t know what’s going on and fall into the trap. You can see it happening regularly on the Twitter stream. Ugh. Don’t do it. STOP blaming the African delegation. They really do have a lot of active participants and they deserve to have a voice and role. Yes, it is more conservative, but great leaders are helping to pave the way as in the stirring sermon given at the dinner hosted by the Black Methodists for Church Renewal (just ask the MFSA and BMCR delegates who were there). Be patient.
Second, those who believe in vital congregations, evangelism, and church growth must reject arguments for “proportionality.” Representation based on proportionality is backward thinking, based on old membership roles. The only way we can be faithful to our calling to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world is to have representatives on boards who understand a particular mission/cultural area and who commit to the world-wide mission of the church. Forget proportional leadership by force and vote for mission-based formation of committees.
Third, progressives, liberals and free thinkers MUST reject these false arguments for “proportionality.” Otherwise, you will soon find yourself voting alone. And, while I am at it, I beg you to stop letting the anti-LGBT Good News leaders defund the West, which is a part of the same tactic (as in Petition Number 20642 “Episcopal Funding” to be discussed on Friday). Friends, it’s going on, right now, every day this week in the legislation. I know it sounds good, but it’s a chocolate mousse pie filled with $#!+. Please do not let them undermine the West.
Fourth, and I’m not sure if I’m off base or out of line about this, but… I’m worried about the socio-economic, racial fall-out of what may happen if Good News gets everything it asks for now (i.e. maximum, membership-based proportionality) and the U.S.A. portion of the church finds itself in eight to sixteen years with a “taxation without representation” situation where it’s providing an overwhelming majority of the money, and the African delegation has 50-70% of the board positions based on membership with full control over financial distributions. I would hope that everyone (and I mean everyone, including African, other Central Conference and US delegates) recognizes that this situation would be unsustainable and could very well mark a radical dismantling of the entire denomination. I don’t mean to sound alarmist or money-ist or condescending, but I really don’t think that it’s ever good for people to have unfettered decision-making capacity on the spending of money to which they did not substantially contribute. Do you get what I mean? It’s unsustainable; something will crack and it won’t be pretty.
Rev. Anthony Tang
Desert Southwest Conference
PS: By the way: children should never be given ice cream based on what’s fair. They should get a limited amount based on what the parent (or guardian) thinks is appropriate for that unique child (and/or occasion), and as long as a large quantity’s reserved for Uncle Anthony, especially if it’s spumoni, which was my dad’s favorite whenever we had Italian dinners. “I miss you, Dad!”
Note: After consideration of the thoughtful comments and questions expressed below, I have made some revisions to this blog post, choosing to remove the characterizations of the Good News faction as being "fundamentalist."
Tuesday, 01-05-12 09:49
Great job Tony....truely impressed with your dedication and logic. My prayers are with you.
Tuesday, 01-05-12 11:33
A fundamentalist is anyone who believes, "I am right, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong." You seem to be as certain of your position as members of the Good News movement, et. al. Does that make you a "fundamentalist," too?
Let's be honest, anything that advances a progressive agenda you support, and anything that advances a conservative agenda, you oppose. There is nothing wrong with that. Just be transparent about it, and avoid the name-calling.
In point of fact, I resist the notion that any United Methodist is genuinely a fundamentalist in their beliefs. Fundamentalists on the right left long ago for the SBC or something similar, and those on the left have long joined the UCC or something like it.
Sure, some are more confident in their perspective than others, but few deserve the term "fundamentalist," which you have clearly employed here as a slanderous epithet. The very fact that you use language as a weapon in this manner reveals the degree to which you are committed to your agenda in something approaching a sort of fundamentalism. (And please don't reply with the argument that your opponents do the same thing. Christ calls us to be better than that, to love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us.)
At best we have some folks who identify strongly with one pole or other of the theological spectrum, most folks who are somewhere in the middle, and a few folks who utterly reject the false dichotomy of liberal/conservative that has done more harm than good to our denomination.
Besides, it seems to me the left has traditionally been the champion of proportional representation. I guess that goes out the window when the math favors the right.
In the end, I guess the point of my response is just a request for honesty and integrity. This post could have been written in three sentences: "Proportional representation will benefit conservative segments of the denomination. I am a liberal. Therefore I oppose proportional representation." To some extent, you did this in your paragraph beginning "Third, progressives, liberals and free thinkers..." Why did you need any of the other paragraphs? This really is the heart of your argument. Everything else you've written is a smoke screen.
Tuesday, 01-05-12 13:27
Dear Billy,
(1) I probably should have mentioned this above, but everything written here represents my views only and not of the delegation, my churches, or the Annual Conference.
(2) I respect that you may disagree with my rhetoric and analysis. Fair enough. But, I don't regret putting it out there and don't see the need to retract it.
(3) Am I a fundamentalist, close-minded liberal? Well, you wouldn't be the first to raise that question, but that question might really surprise others. I like to believe that I think things out, but I am far from perfect. Am I opinionated? Definitely. But, I have been known to change my opinions when faced with well thought-out arguments.
(4) I do respect your arguments about my use of "fundamentalist." I'm willing to accept that criticism, that I did not need to use it.
(5) But, I hope that the underlying call to everything you wrote was a call to love and care for others, namely the conservative-leaning members of General Conference. That's a challenge for me when I see the above actions as persecuting and silencing. But, that's a respectful call that resembles the one Christ gives to all of us. I will work on that.
Anthony
Tuesday, 01-05-12 13:32
As I read all of this I can't help but paraphrase a line from Tolkien: "Their only reward will be the laughter of Satan". We have made things too complex and have forgotten the simple message of what Jesus would have us do. Love one another, feed the poor, clothe the naked, care for the sick, and minister to those imprisoned. I am an engineer, not a theologian, but complexity is the enemy of functionality. The church bureaucracy needs to get about the work of Jesus.
Tuesday, 01-05-12 17:37
I grew up with a little saying about Methodists that I still cherish "The Methodist Church is big enough for everyone but everyone is not big enough to be a Methodist." My first great heart break was when I learned it wasn't true... Way to many labels on the right and left but I'm still going to work for a church that reflects the little saying.
Tuesday, 01-05-12 17:55
As in the days of old we have the Church Laity condeming the flock and going against the whole counsel and intent of The Word of God. We are called to be transformed and not to be conformed to the world. What can be more worldly and more of the flesh than what Tony wants us to be?
Tuesday, 01-05-12 18:18
Mark, I take it you must know Rev. Tang, in that you referred to him as "Tony." What do you think that Anthony wants us to be? Which laity are "condeming [sic] the flock"? I don't see anything like that in his post, so I'm puzzled by your response. Perhaps you could help me understand how your response relates to what he wrote?
Tuesday, 01-05-12 23:17
David you will have to exuse me as I had to reply to this rant against "Fundamental" Christians in the last minutes of my break with my phone.
First of all my father's name was Antonio Flores Jr. He went by Tony and hated to be called sir,in the same vein I will not stoop to call some one "Reverend" unless they insist on that title ;) As you may know our Bishop and Anthony are Pro LGTG as well as many of our upper leaders and Pastors They all fall into the group that Anthony identifies himself with "progressives, liberals and free thinkers" This is The Church hierarchy that has been at war with the laity covertly and overtly. These are the ones who are charged to feed and guide the flock towards holiness and they are paid well to do so. Instead they are causing division and installing, promoting and protecting known lesbians and Gays in places of authority in direct defiance of Church discipline and Biblical doctrine.
Rom 16:17 ¶ Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
The strife and the division that these people are fighting for is to have a carnal non-repenting people to be accepted and promoted to the same places of authority as them as they have the same mindset as they do....."progressives, liberals and free thinkers" with all the worldly viewpoints politics that go with it. Pro-Abortion, Socialism, Obamacare, and yes LGTG dominance in the Church? Are you on That Side?
Wednesday, 02-05-12 09:09
Mark - thanks for your more detailed response. However, I take issue with much of what you've written, as follows:
First, after carefully reading Anthony's post, he doesn't appear to have identified *himself* as a "progressive, liberal, or free thinker," but rather, he was offering some advice to those people about how to deal with the primary issues of his post: proportionality and fairness.
Second, you appear to have misunderstood both the overall meaning and also the specifics of Anthony's post. He isn't advocating for LGBT issues in this post--he is talking about the dangers of the Western Jurisdiction Conferences losing their "voice" in the guidance and governance of the UMC, due to a concerted effort by (for lack of a better word) "Fundamentalists" who seek to minimize our ability to participate.
You identify our Bishop, Anthony, many upper leaders and pastors as being pro-LGBT, but I wonder if you're aware that our annual conference has voted (in 2009) to be a Reconciling and Welcoming Conference? This was supported by a strong majority of the lay and clergy delegates from churches all over our conference, so it's not just certain conference leaders who are supportive of full inclusion of our LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ. You can read the resolution in the 2009 archive section of the Annual Conference area on the DSC websit. It is found by going to the Resolutions page and clicking on the "Click here to download resolutions submitted to the 2009 Session of the Desert Southwest Conference" link. The resolution was number 21.20.
Finally, as to which "side" I'm on, let me clarify that although I'm an employee of the DSC (Computer Systems Manager), I'm speaking here entirely on my own behalf as a long-time United Methodist (and born-again Christian, baptized as a Southern Baptist), and not in any way on behalf of the Conference.
Again, this blog post really has little to do with LGBT issues--so I think you and I could discuss that in a more appropriate place.
Blessings,
David T
Wednesday, 02-05-12 13:00
Anthony:
Thank you for your thoughts displayed as well as your frustrations in a challenging way during the late hours of the night. I agree on the "diversion tactics" you mention. When I went to GC in 2008 as an observer, I realize how much power the South(U.S.) and African delegates can have or difference they can make voting. I see much injustice done against our LGBT brothers and sisters when delegates from another continent are harming through their votes people like Mark Miller (who stood up during a session),a beloved brother who I love dearly. A colleague of mine who is a marshall at GC, commented in his facebook page citing Mark Tooley: "The Methodists will remain unchanged "in large part because of the influence of African delegates always seeking the will of God, African delegations make up nearly 40 percent of the General Conference this year, and they are very strongly evangelical on all issue,".
I would say, Could there be a slight possibility that they might be a stumbling block? I know these are hard words, but it has been 40 years of suffering, of being marginalized.
Javier O.
Wednesday, 02-05-12 13:40
Billy...as a child of Fundamentalist parents, I need to revise your definition of Fundamentalist: someone who says "I am right, and anyone who disagrees with me is of Satan." Wrong is fine. I have been wrong many times and will be wrong again in the future (probably later today.) But disagreeing with someone and therefore being labeled as "of Satan" and condemned to hell and unfit for the Kingdom are something else entirely.
When we fight against someone who is 'wrong' in opinion, we are calling out what we believe to be errors in their synthesis of information or analysis of the situation. When we fight someone who is 'of Satan' we are fighting a battle to the death for our own soul and that of our children/friends/family members, etc. Losing the argument to someone/some group that is 'of Satan' is to risk the poisoning of the Church and the loss of our spiritual home.
Can you see the difference in intensity that this creates? Arguing with someone who is diametrically opposed to me in opinion may cause things to get heated; I may consider them misguided or simply foolish; at no time do I wish to annihilate them. I need them to counterbalance me! I too, can be misled, foolish, etc. Having been raised as a Fundamentalist, I can tell you that they see Satan around every corner. I was taught that participating in something as banal as dancing was opening the door to Satan and the loss of my soul. You can imagine how a Fundamentalist might view the damage that opening the door of the Church to LGBT persons might do.
All in all, I have to agree with Tom Wick "The United Methodist Church is big enough for everyone, but not everyone is big enough to be a Methodist." Love is much harder to sustain than judgement, which leads me to believe that human beings tend towards judgement because it is easier, not because it is of God.
Please forgive me if I seem disjointed...I am firing this comment off in the 10 minute breaks I have between clients. God bless!
Thursday, 03-05-12 10:16
Tina,
I am sorry for the harm inflicted on you by your experiences of conservative fundamentalism. Perhaps in defining fundamentalism as simply as I did I was a bit hasty. Of course, we all make judgement calls, which by their very nature put us at odds with those with whom we disagree. I think my point is that I associate fundamentalism with the degree to which one holds her/his position, feeling thereby entitled to demean those with whom s/he disagrees. If I absolutely exclude the possibility I might be wrong on a given issue, and use this as an excuse to dismiss other perspectives, then I am a fundamentalist on that given issue. It matters not whether I threaten the other with eternal damnation, acccusations of xenophobia of one kind or another, or dismissal as simple-minded. Fundamentalism frees me from listening to those with whom I disagree, allows me to lump everyone with a different view into one category, and allows me to dehumanize the other. Some people define fundamentalism as though there are only conservative fundamentalists. I have experienced too many fundamentalists on both sides of the political spectrum to define the term in that way. For the record, I do not think Anthony is a fundamentalist (I meant to convey that when I stated my belief that true fundamentalists, for the most part, have already left the UMC), and by extension I do not think Good News folks are fundamentalists either. The purpose of my post was not to challenge Anthony's perspecitve, but the manner in which he expressed it.
Grace & peace,
Billy
Thursday, 03-05-12 10:31
Anthony,
Thank you for your thoughtful and prompt reply. I apologize for not seeing and responding sooner. Points 4 and 5 in your response really were all that I was trying to address in my post. I understood this post to reflect your views, and would not dream of asking or expecting for any kind of retraction. I appreciate your point of view, but simply wanted to ask that you be more gracious when speaking of those with whom you disagree. I appreciate your grace in engaging my comments.
Grace & peace,
Billy
Thursday, 03-05-12 10:44
David,
Please help me understand. I am not sure what Mark is talking about, but a portion of your response to him strikes me as exceedingly ironic in this context. You point to the fact that more delegates to your annual conference voted in favor of a progressive stance to refute Mark's apparent innuendo of conspiracy. Yet, essentially the point of this post is that those favoring proporionality at GC are engaging in a consipiracy to silence progressive voices. Again, it seems to me as if proportionality, when it favors a progressive outcome, is here deemed a good thing. But proportionality, when it favors a conservative outcome, is here deemed a consipiracy. There are proportionally more progressives in your conference than conservatives, so they tend to win votes couched in terms of liberal/conservative. There are proportionally more conservatives in global Methodism, so they tend to win GC votes couched in terms of liberal/conservative. Why is the former a good thing, while the latter is somehow sinister? Please don't dismiss this as a loaded question. I assure you it is genuine. Help me understand.
Grace & peace,
Billy
Thursday, 03-05-12 12:03
I *think* I can help you understand, Billy, but given that you don't appear to correctly discern Anthony's actual meaning, and seem to be accusing us of hypocrisy by filtering his words through your own worldview, I fear it may be difficult.
Mark appears to think that it's only the leadership of our conference, and not the laity, who support full inclusion. Quoth he: "This is The Church hierarchy that has been at war with the laity covertly and overtly." My pointing to the action taken by a balanced mix of both clergy *and* laity of our annual conference was to help Mark gain a different, and more accurate understanding of the "situation on the ground" in our conference. My purpose was NOT to use any majority status to beat up on his position, akin to the ubiquitous children's playground rationalization of "MAJORITY RULES!" So there's actually no true irony here, Billy.
The majority is not always correct--look at slavery, women's suffrage, and many other justice issues where majorities were clearly in the wrong. My understanding of what Anthony has written is quite different than yours, as I'm clear that he is not expressing the words that you're putting in his mouth.
In the interest of full disclosure, the rest of us here are clearly identified as to who we are and where we're from. You're posting semi-anonymously, so perhaps you'd like to join us "in the light" and allow us to properly greet you as our brother in Christ?
Peace,
David Topping
(not speaking on behalf of my employer, the DSC)
Thursday, 03-05-12 13:51
Dear Billy and David,
Billy, no need to identify yourself to me. In any environment where you don't feel safe, remain anonymous. There is no need to leave the conversation.
My agenda (as I see it) for the above call was to rally liberals in other parts of the country to defend an attack on the West, which I argue is in their own best interest. Is this conspiracy theory thinking? It's not very secretive. There are petitions to remove the Western Jurisdiction and to fold it into others, to reduce distributions to the West (that traditionally go to all jurisdictions), to reduce the number of bishops in the West, to reduce representation on all general boards and agencies from the West. In face of this, for me to not recognize the tactic seems more akin to burying my head in the sand. In addition, please note that there are NO petitions that seek to eliminate or remove an entire voting block from a Southcentral or Southeastern jurisdiction as is being attempted against the West. The only petitions or amendments that have been recommended that might be perceived as an "attack" on the South have been for geographic representation including every area equally (as in the US Senate).
I believe my analysis is accurate, although the last-ditch strategy does not seem effective with one day left of GC.
My two-fold strategy now is to (a) continue to help our liberal, conservative, and diverse congregations to grow and (b) to develop a long-term strategy to help our entire United Methodist Church to grow in its Wesleyan heritage.
And in all this, I am continuing to work on loving my neighbor as I love myself and loving those who would seek to give those of us in the West no voice in our own church.
Anthony
Thursday, 03-05-12 14:18
Thanks for responding, Anthony, and while I hope that Billy would feel safe here, there is indeed no need for him to further identify himself (or herself, if it's the female version of "Billy"). :-)
Speaking of attacks on the West, Anthony, don't forget the continued attempts at remove two western seminaries (Claremont and Iliff) from the approved list.
Peace,
David
Thursday, 03-05-12 15:40
David and Anthony,
I trust there is no need for me to conceal anything, and never actually intended to do so. It is not uncommon to comment on blogs using nothing more than one's given name in my experience. If providing my surname alleviates the concerns of any (sadly, I guess CtA was at least right in noting that we don't trust one another), I am happy to do so. It is Watson. I am happy as well to share where I am from, tusting that if this diminishes my point of view in anyone's eyes, that reveals a great deal about that individual and virtually nothing about me. I am from Texas. Tonight I have Girl Scouts and baseball to attend to with my children, but I will respond further when I am able. Thank you for your patience and our dialogue. I want to understand the proportionality debate better than I do, and appreciate your help.
Grace & peace,
Billy
Thursday, 03-05-12 16:29
Thanks, Billy. Your being from Texas doesn't diminish the value of your comments at all--we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and we seek to live as faithful disciples wherever God puts us on this beautiful earth!
Enjoy the activities with your children (my daughter is a lifetime Girl Scout and my wife was her Scout leader--my son is an Eagle Scout), and I trust you'll be one of the "good parents" at the baseball game, as I'm sure you've seen the other kind (I was an assistant youth league coach and they put me behind the plate when the professional umpire didn't show...oh my, the abuse!).
I've heard that the attempt to divide the funding of Bishops by jurisdiction was ruled unconstitutional, so that's one GC2012 outcome that I am grateful for, along with a number of others.
Peace,
David T (currently from Arizona, a bit further West before that)