wfn.org | Commentary: It's time to dump lay addresses

[NewsDesk <NewsDesk@UMCOM.ORG>]

March 19, 2002 News media contact: Tim Tanton7(615)742-54707Nashville, Tenn.
10-71BP{115}

NOTE: For an opposing viewpoint, see the related commentary, UMNS #116. A
head-and-shoulders photograph of J. Richard Peck is available at
http://umns.umc.org/photogallery.html online.

A UMNS Commentary 
By the Rev. J. Richard Peck*
  
It's two years before the 2004 General Conference, and we can discuss the
issue without any reflection on individuals.
 
It was not a practice of either the former Methodist Church or the
Evangelical United Brethren Church. 
 
It was a bad idea when it was introduced into the United Methodist Church,
and it is a practice that the Commission on General Conference should
eliminate.
 
The idea of adding the Laity Address to the Episcopal Address at General
Conference is bad because it leads to the conclusion that bishops speak only
for the clergy and not the laity.
 
In fact, bishops are elected by equal numbers of laity and clergy. They
represent both groups, and they are as concerned about empowerment of the
laity as any layman or laywoman. 
 
The fact that bishops may have additional theological training, experience
with a variety of conference and general church agencies, and spend most of
their time addressing church issues does not disqualify them from speaking
on behalf of both clergy and laity. By the same token, less experience in
these matters does not confer special insight or inspiration to laypersons.
 
Bishops from around the world elect a spokesperson, and his or her episcopal
address is carefully reviewed by all members of the Council of Bishops.
Bishops from Europe, Africa and the Philippines have equal opportunities to
have their concerns heard.
 
On the other hand, the Laity Address more nearly compares to a speech
contest in which written copies are judged and a speaking ability assessed
in order to select the most articulate lay leader. There are fewer
opportunities for concerns outside the United States to be heard, and it is
a herculean assignment to ask any single individual to speak on behalf of
more than 9 million United Methodist laypeople. 
 
That doesn't mean this process produces poor speeches by laypeople. Some of
the best speeches at General Conference have been delivered by laypeople.
But General Conference is not designed to be a place to hear fine speeches.
It is a business assembly, and delegates are to set the agenda and establish
the processes for the denomination. 

Laypeople have ample opportunities to petition General Conference and thus
help set the agenda, and thousands of them do. The addition of a speech by a
non-ordained person doesn't make that practice any more meaningful and, in
fact, reduces the time allowed for considering such petitions.
 
It's time for the Commission on General Conference to end the practice, and
it's time for those annual conferences that also provide time for laity
addresses to consider what such a practice is teaching conference members.

# # #

*Peck was the four-time editor of the Daily Christian Advocate for General
Conference. He lives in Nashville, Tenn.

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