During my short time at General Conference, I’ve gained an appreciation for parliamentary procedure. It may sound dorky, but I really like it! I was worried about how it would work, but it wasn’t as hard as I thought. Actually, I have come to like it a lot. Dare I even call it fun?
However, my legislative subcommittee was not following parliamentary procedure very well yesterday. The chair repeatedly wanted us to vote on the amended petition before we officially adopted the amendment. Sometimes he asked us to vote for rejection (because that was the group’s consensus) but you actually have to vote for adoption and if it doesn’t pass, then it’s rejected. There was even a time when a delegate was conducting audible cell phone use, which is also out of order. At the end of the session yesterday, the chair wanted to adjourn without officially tabling a petition, deeming it unnecessary to actually go through the formal motion.
I kept reminding the chair that these things were out of order, but most of the committee just seemed to dismiss my concerns. (I think this dismissive attitude has to do with me being a young, progressive delegate.) They thought that since an action was the general consensus of the committee it didn’t need to have a formal vote. This, however, is a very, very dangerous precedent. Operating by consensus can threaten to silence the minority’s opinions, which is the exact reason why we follow parliamentary procedure. Parliamentary procedure allows for their voice to be expressed when it may normally not be.
So, as someone who is in the minority both in age and in theological views, you can understand my frustration with a subcommittee that did not strictly adhere to parliamentary rules. If we are really going to live up to the ideal of Holy Conferencing, we need to abide by parliamentary procedure, for it is the only way to ensure that all views are fairly expressed. To call anything short of that Holy Conferencing would be a lie.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 28, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Wesley Sanders
Kurt, I really think it’s much more your age rather than your theology. In my experience with church politics, (and life in general), people are dismissive of young people, no matter how much lip service the church pays to wanting to be “relevant” to youth and wanting to reach out to the youth. I find relevance to be useless if they don’t listen to what I have to say.
The main reason I say this is that I sometimes feel that being a conservative in a less than conservative Annual Conference and church, I find my views sometimes being dismissed, but the more I pay attention to the way things are, it’s about my age, not my theology.
It’s not a theology problem; it’s an ageism problem.
The church assumes that youth want rock music and flashy graphics and that we can’t really understand deep theology or the workings of a church budget. I imagine I could count on one hand the number of youth (<18 years old) who are on Conference Committees on Finance. The problem is that the church as a whole seems to miss the point that we want genuineness more than anything else. I don’t care how much money they spend on programs, if they don’t give me the benefit of the same rights and privileges as those older than me, I will not be impressed. I think that is part of the core of the problem with the declining youth population in the church. The church puts youth on committees and thinks “how cute, he’s on the finance committee, isn’t that special?” rather than saying “what can she provide to us in the way of a different perspective.” They also assume that we know less and are less capable often.
Of course, this is a generalization that is not true of all churches and not true of every experience I’ve had. I’ve had many good experiences where my age wasn’t made a factor in what I was asked to do. But the general trend that I’ve seen is that this is how the denomination is treating youth. But then, this is just my opinion; I could be wrong.
April 28, 2008 at 7:49 pm
twoweeksintexas
Wesley,
I think that you are absolutely right. Generally speaking, the church wants youth and young adults to be window dressings that make the rest of the church feel good. (There are some exceptions, but this my general observation.)
And to address the point about whether its discrimination against age or theology, I agree that it was primarily ageism. The reason I got so frustrated about it not being followed well is because my theological views were in the minority in the committee and I wanted them to be able to express them fairly.
So I apologize for the confusion, but I was meaning to say that I was discriminated against as a young adult and was even more angry about it because of my minority viewpoint. Hope that clarifies what I meant!
Thanks for reading. Keep on commenting!
April 28, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Wesley Sanders
I agree, it is frustrating when you have a point or want to provoke discussion but you’re dismissed by the powers that be for whatever reason. I’ve found that it’s helpful when you have really clear, compelling evidence that, at the very least, you have the right to speak. I bring my copy of Robert’s Rules and the Discipline to pretty much every church committee meeting I go to and if necessary I invoke them in order to make a point. I’ve found that showing that I am familiar with parliamentary procedure and church law gives me more credence when I want to speak up.
I hope you enjoy the rest of your time at General Conference; I am praying for you and all the delegates as the denomination takes important steps forward so that we do have a future with hope! I look forward to seeing you in a few weeks at Annual Conference