1999 SOCIETY CONCLAVE-----A MISSED OPPORTUNITY
A Report by Golden Gate Circle Society Representative, Robert Fontana
The day before the beginning of IC99 in Vancouver, British Columbia, a Society Conclave took place. Society Conclaves are a gathering of two representatives from each of the Societies of the FEF, who meet to discuss their Society's activities, support the events of other Societies, and share ideas of how each Society may improve their effectiveness in providing a service to their members and to the readers who attend the study groups within their Societies. It is a unique gathering in that it only occurs about once every three years or so, and that it is one of the few opportunities that Society members have where they may share ideas and get to know people from all of the other Societies. From such a rare opportunity, one may create some rather high expectations. This year was especially anticipated, as it was a joint gathering for both the FEF Societies and the International Urantia Associations, which marked the first time that such a representative gathering of the two organizations has ever assembled. The gathering was sponsored by the First Society of Chicago, and it was moderated by Barbara Newsom of the First Society and by Cathy Jones of the IUA.
In all there were approximately twenty Societies and fifteen IUAs represented at the gathering. The Fellowship Societies met together in the morning session, and they were joined by the IUA representatives in the afternoon session. In each session, the representatives introduced themselves and their Society or Association, and a published agenda called for discussion regarding the structure and functioning of a Society/Association as well as their individual activities and possible joint activities between the two organizations.
This published agenda was sent to representatives prior to the event so that they may better prepare for the gathering. This agenda included many questions that the representatives could pose to their Society members in preparing for the event, such as how they feel about what the Society's role is in providing service to its readership, how the Society could better serve the needs of its community, which activities of a Society have shown themselves to be the most successful and why, etc., etc. Lee Smith and I were the representatives from the Golden Gate Circle Society.
Both Lee and I highly anticipated this gathering for both the functional as well as the historic potential possibilities that lay open to it. The main reason for this anticipation is that the Conclave forum, more than any other organized structure, is not part of the political platform of the FEF; that is, it is not an arm of the general council, but rather an informal association amongst the Societies. As such, it is a perfect vehicle for the readers who are affiliated with the two politically opposed organizations to meet in a non-political arena in order to discuss constructive approaches to the real business at hand-----that of better serving its community with this highly prized revelation.
Despite the ideal staging for such a coming together of what should have been common goals of sincere readers, what resulted was a fiasco in the first degree-----not because of a strife between the representatives of the two organizations, but due to a sabotage of the agenda by certain individuals within the Fellowship Societies themselves. The morning session afforded each representative only two minutes (literally) to introduce themselves, their Society, and any Society effort that they wished to share with the others. Then we hurriedly began an attempt at addressing some of the questions that were posed on the published agenda. Within an hour of the discussion, Paul Snider was allowed to propose a resolution (two of them in fact) that had so many political overtones as to completely dissolve the cohesiveness of the gathering. Mind you, this was in the morning gathering that consisted only of Fellowship Societies.
Resolution #1 called for a vote of agreement amongst the Societies of the FEF to "support and cooperate with the Urantia Foundation and its primary purposes," which included its publishing of the book, translation efforts, and "its employment of copyrights and trademarks." The rest of the morning session was devoted to arguing about this resolution. Resolution #2, which called for a condemnation of Harry McMullan's ublication of Part IV of the Urantia Book, never officially made it to the floor, a fact which didn't seem to hinder it from weaving its way into every discussion that followed. By the time the IUA joined in the afternoon session, the political rivalries amongst just the Society members were brewing to a point that must have appeared at least odd and perhaps insane to every IUA representative that witnessed it. Regretfully, I must say that at that moment I experienced something that I had thought that I never would-----true embarrassment of being a part of this organization. Several attempts by myself and other representatives to quash this political discussion came to little or no result. Lee Smith spoke what were perhaps the most provocative words when he stated that "the local organizations are the lifeblood of the Urantia movement. Jesus's religion is of the individual. We don't necessarily need to have everyone in the same organization. The fifth epochal revelation tells us to take the fourth revelation to the world---a new presentation of the life of Jesus---and the fifth will follow. We need truth hunger and faith sincerity. Let go of past ideas. Let Harry face the consequences of his actions and deal with the Foundation----if that means getting sued, so be it----that's a civil issue and does not affect us. We are religionists." One would think that such words would have ended the dissention. It did-----for about four minutes, and then it resumed.
An IUA representative applauded Lee's words, followed by a FEF representative's remarks that these issues still need to be resolved, followed by an equally defiant comment from an IUA representative, and so on, and so on. Even though this political virus was perpetrated by a minority of those present, they managed to dominate the remainder of dwindling moments that were afforded this gathering. It was truly a sad waste of time, energy, sincerity, and potential.
Despite the negative traps that were set by those with a different agenda, it was interesting and somewhat enlightening to see how several representatives, whom I had perceived to be the majority, dealt with this divisiveness, especially many of the IUA representatives. For example, Tim Hobbs from the IUA in Colorado commented on how few people in his area are readers of this book, and that those that are have to go to great lengths to seek each other out in order to have an argument. Chris Wood, the IUA representative from the Missouri/Kansas region, indicated that most young readers feel that the rift between the two organizations doesn't matter anymore----that there is no reason to be divided. He said that most of the older readers have hurt feelings left from the rift, and that the smallest group of readers want to continue the schism, but that the young people, if necessary, will resort to the "50 year principle"-----if it doesn't get resolved, then in 50 years the schism will resolve itself, as those who want to continue the schism won't be around anymore. That's a luxury that's only afforded the youth, and perhaps that's the way it should be. Ron Louie, a long time FEF member and now an IUA representative from the Cascades, offered an insightful analogy about learning to ride a bicycle. He recalled that when he first learned how to ride, he saw only the obstacles that were in his path, but that his brother told him to keep his eyes focused ahead on the destination, and by doing this his body went in that direction. He said that we need to do the same thing----to focus on where we want to be and to move in that direction, rather than to get stuck on where we are because we see only the obstacles in our path.
I would like to say that at least the gathering ended on a good note, but it didn't. In fact, the conclusion was the saddest event of all, for it became clear that this subversion of the agenda was no accident. With seven minutes left of allotted time, Barbara gave Nick Scalzo, an IUA representative of New England and also a member of the New York Society, the floor to deliver a well-rehearsed six and a half minute speech that was designed to dramatize Snider's resolutions and close the session with an emotional appeal towards unifying behind this political cause, manipulating everyone to stand up in a show of support for unification. However, when Ken Keyser, representative of the First Society of Chicago, responded immediately that such a move may not be the best direction at this time, Mr. Scalzo got up and left the room in anger, stating that he "didn't want to listen to that crap." By this point it was becoming clear what was going on. And when Barbara Newsom later gave her report to the general council on the Society Conclave, there were no doubts remaining.
What happened here is that a few people took it upon themselves to subvert the purpose of this gathering in order to further their own political agenda. There is no doubt that they organized this fiasco and even rehearsed it somewhat. The reason for it was to gain a voice before the general council, which is at least the correct forum for such a discussion. However, they feared that they may be heard by the council as just voices in the wilderness; however, by presenting their opinion under the pretense of a reporting of the Society Conclave, which Barbara Newsom did in fact do, they sought to deceive the council into believing that their agenda was actually that of the conclave of Society representatives. Fortunately, despite a very inaccurate and highly manipulative report, the deception didn't work. What is unfortunate is that this rare gathering, this perfect vehicle with great potential----the first gathering of representatives of all Societies and Associations----was treated by these few as just collateral damage of a political maneuver. It was really sad to witness this event being abused in this manner, being treated as if it were just expendable garbage that could be tossed about on the end of a sword. To think what could have happened, what might have been, if we were allowed to meet honestly, openly, one with another in a true act of sharing, caring, and supporting each group that was represented. Instead, we played the roles of unwitting pawns in battle that has become old and has made us old in the process. Maybe that 50 year principle will become our destiny. Maybe it should.
Some in the Fellowship may not appreciate my use of names and motives in this article. I can only respond by saying that this is the most unenjoyable article I have ever written. My only motive in writing it is that in doing so, I, or anyone else, may never have to report such an incident in the future. I have read countless articles from excellent writers regarding Urantia organizational business-----many of them critical of acts by the Foundation and the people involved in those actions. Well, this time the criticism has to go in the other direction, and I cannot avoid hypocrisy by using a different tact just because the focus is on a different group. Some of the people I have named here are good people in my opinion who made bad choices. I do not judge them, nor doubt the sincerity behind their motives. And I am not upset with their political views. I do, however, condemn their behavior and the total disregard that they showed for those who were willing to participate in what this event was suppose to be. They should be ashamed of themselves and they should personally apologize to everyone who was present at this event. But that is their decision to make. Hopefully, at least, we can prevent this kind of result from ever occurring again at a Society Conclave. Only from its exposure can we hope to learn from what happened here so that such a result will not be repeated in the future. It is to that end that I have chosen to write this article in the manner that I have.
Bob Fontana