I wonder if this would go down easier if we called Rule 44 “Rule Hank Aaron”? This was Aaron’s number in baseball for 22 years, Naming it after a beloved American icon could help us all feel good about it. Right now, differing view points are using the group discernment process proposal to point fingers and accuse others of trying to promote a “progressive” agenda. The concept of giving everyone voice and opening up the channels for listening have gotten lost in the rhetoric of suspicion and ulterior motives. I am not saying hidden agendas do not exist or even influence the thinking, but whatever benefits and advantages we may gain from Rule 44 is in serious jeopardy.
Much of what I have heard in criticism of the process is that it is untested and imperfect. Uhm, duh. A brand new process needs testing to be tested, and I have yet to engage in a perfect process of human communication. The bottom line here is Rule 44 will only work as well as the people allow it to. When we commit to make something work well, it generally does. When we pick something apart and refuse to give it a fair trial, it fails miserably. This is where we are: give this our best shot and see where it takes us. The only way it will fail totally is to never give it a chance.
Categories: General Conference