wfn.org | Commentary: Laity Address should be retained

[NewsDesk <NewsDesk@UMCOM.ORG>]

March 19, 2002 News media contact: Linda Green7(615)742-54707Nashville,
Tenn.  10-71BP{116}

NOTE: For an opposing viewpoint, see the related commentary, UMNS #115. A
head-and-shoulders photograph of Julius Archibald is available at
http://umns.umc.org/photogallery.html.

A UMNS Commentary
By Julius Archibald*

It has been suggested that the Laity Address be dropped from the General
Conference agenda. We recognize that there has not always been a Laity
Address. The presence of this address is a powerful indicator that the
church has evolved from a theocracy to a democracy; its removal would
constitute a tremendous step backward.

There was a time when laypeople had no role in the General Conference or in
the governance of our church. Today, we sit together as colleagues with our
brothers and sisters of the clergy in the General Conference and in other
areas of the church. We bring different concerns and we share from different
perspectives around a common table. 

As partners in ministry, it is important that we continue to dialogue and
listen to each other as often as possible. At General Conference, the
Episcopal Address and the Laity Address set the dialogue. These are
presented by a selected member of the Council of Bishops on behalf of the
entire council, and by a selected member of the Association of Annual
Conference Lay Leaders on behalf of the entire association. The addresses
have become important parts of the General Conference.

We note that relationships and roles within the church are still evolving.
The governance of the church itself is evolving from theocracy to democracy.
While we humbly see ourselves as servants in the ministries of Christ and
the church, we know that Christ looks upon us as friends. 

In recent years, as our understanding of and relationship to God continue to
mature, we have come to recognize that all of us are God's servants in
ministry to and with God's people, in God's world. Consistent with our
common call into the priesthood of all believers, we have all entered into a
covenantal relationship with God and with each other, a partnership of
servant ministers and servant leaders. This is not a matter of lay ministers
and ordained ministers; it is a matter of all ministers. As laity and
clergy, we do have different roles in ministry, different concerns and
different perspectives. 

We are called to come together, to listen, to discern, and to respond so
that we may move together toward common understandings and common decisions,
with the common goal of carrying out God's will. We are in partnership with
each other throughout the church: lay leaders, lay members and lay delegates
as representatives of the laity, in conversations and conference with
colleagues of the clergy.  It is appropriate that we share our concerns and
our perspectives with each other wherever and whenever we come together as
the church.

It is argued that bishops, having been elected by jurisdictional conferences
consisting of one-half lay and one-half clergy delegates, can be
representative of both groups. We, the Association of Annual Conference Lay
Leaders, challenge this conclusion; a strong majority of 85 percent of
either half can lead to the disciplinary recommended 60 percent majority
with less than a 40 percent minority of the other half. It is essential that
the different concerns and perspectives of these groups continue to be
shared by the appropriate representatives if the church is to respond fully
to Christ's call to ministry.  

We acknowledge the bishops' greater academic preparation in such areas as
theology, and we respect their greater experience as general superintendents
in the nature of and needs for ministry. We would argue that these
considerations neither negate the message of the laity nor disqualify the
laity from being heard. We contend that grace and call, which are of divine
origin, are not to be confused with either academic credentials or
experiential learning, as valuable and as important as these may be.

Our processes for developing the Laity Address and selecting the presenter
have been called into question. Our association, as the agency responsible
for the address, has modeled our process after that used by the Council of
Bishops. We are aware of our shortcomings; we are taking steps to improve
the process. 

Our association has opened its membership to annual conference lay leaders
in Europe, Africa and the Philippines, providing a means to receive the
concerns of our brothers and sisters in the central conferences.
Regretfully, we do not have adequate funds to support our efforts toward
becoming a global agency. We are looking into ways of solving this problem.
As United Methodists, our claim is that we are moving on toward perfection;
we are not there yet.

The Laity and Episcopal addresses are firmly established in the Rules of
Order of the General Conference. We would encourage the elected delegates to
future conferences to retain the provision for both addresses, and to
perfect the processes for their development.
# # #
*Archibald is the immediate past president of the United Methodist
Association of Annual Conference Lay Leaders and is lay leader of the Troy
Annual Conference.

Commentaries provided by United Methodist News Service do not necessarily
represent the opinions or official policies of UMNS or the United Methodist
Church.

*************************************
United Methodist News Service
Photos and stories also available at:
http://umns.umc.org