“We have huge trust issues.” – Adam Hamilton
Finally I’ve calmed down enough to do some thinking about GC 2012 without getting worked up. Like a lot of folks, I spent a few weeks angry and depressed. So I threw myself back into the work of the local church…confirmation, new members…and again God proved to me that the actions of GC don’t change anything about Jesus or about the community I pastor. For that, I’m so grateful.
Adam Hamilton is absolutely right, building trust will take a lot of conversations. Not just among Methodists in the US but around the world. I’m convinced American Methodists have no clue about the structural, spiritual, or cultural realities of the Church in Africa or Europe. I know I don’t. In fact, I doubt those in the Southeast Jurisdiction really understand the situation in the Northeast, or vice versa. So conversation is definitely important.
I want to remind us of another key component of trust: transparency. Hamilton alluded to the issue in the interview linked above, when he touched on (hidden) “agendas.” He said, “Sometimes there IS an agenda going on and sometimes good people are trying to make the next best decision.”
We all have agendas. Let’s start there, because the statement implies that good people don’t. I disagree. I hope all of us – and I imagine at least most of us – are good people who want what’s best for the Church. But we all have different visions of what would be the best Church and hence different agendas.
Usually when we use the word “agenda” it’s a pejorative to describe a preferred outcome that is driven more by ego than by big-picture, what’s-best-for-the-Church thinking. No question, that element is always present, even in “good people.” We’ve got to ask God’s wisdom to recognize it. That said, much of what we derisively label an “agenda” is simply someone else’s preferred outcome based on someone else’s vision for the Church.
In other words, when we do it, it’s “wanting what’s best for the church.” When someone else does it, it’s an “agenda.”
If we want to build trust, we’re going to have to find the courage to bring our agendas into the light of day. I can work with someone when I know where they’re coming from and what they want – even if we disagree – because then I understand what might make for compromise.
Here’s the catch. Revealing our agendas often means revealing either: 1) that we fundamentally distrust the other person; or 2) that we believe they’ve failed to do their job.
An illustration: it’s hard for me to look at the restructuring proposals and counter-proposals without seeing them as a clash of agendas between (primarily) the bishops and the agency executives. We talked about the various plans in terms of efficiency and adequate representation but my sense is that what we really should be talking about is 1) why these two groups distrust each other and 2) why someone feels someone else isn’t doing their job. Of course, this is what we’re not doing.
Ugly, I know. Personal, I know. Best done one-on-one, in private, behind closed doors. But I don’t see evidence that it is happening. Because if it were, where people were coming clean on their agendas and working out their interpersonal stuff, I’m guessing we wouldn’t be slugging it out on the floor of GC.
The problem: the only alternative to working things out in private is speaking them in public. Maybe this can be done, but it strikes me as incredibly risky for everyone involved. What’s spoken at arm’s length seems harmless enough until you suddenly find yourself in the same room with the person who’s been insulted by something you’ve said.
I’ll leave you with a few questions to ponder and pray over:
Do we value transparency – in ourselves and others – as foundational to relationships?
Are we willing to reveal and articulate our agendas, even if they paint us in a negative light?
Can we develop trust without first revealing the dimensions of our distrust?