Untitled Document

What does it mean to be a global or worldwide church? That question has gained increasing urgency over the past eight years, as a growing percentage of the United Methodist Church resides outside the United States.

Most Protestant mainline denominations have a different organizational church in each country, with the various national churches forming a looser federation of churches at the global level. Each national church is fairly autonomous, and the federation of churches engages in voluntary, cooperative efforts on a small range of issues and activities. (Methodism has something like this with the World Methodist Council.)

By contrast, the United Methodist Church sees itself as a worldwide denomination, with members in many countries. A member in the Congo or Finland is on the same footing as a member in Indiana or Texas. Until now, the UM Church has been a U.S.-dominated church, dealing mainly with U.S. problems and addressing the U.S. cultural and political situation. That is beginning to change, as an increasing percentage (now nearly a third) of our members live outside the U.S. Non-U.S. members are beginning to raise concerns about times when the General Conference takes actions that are really only applicable to the U.S., without necessarily considering how those actions will affect members in Nigeria or Eastern Europe—or whether the actions are even relevant for a member living in the Philippines.

It is also more costly to function as a worldwide church. Non-U.S. members are entitled to proportional representation based on membership at the General Conference and on each of the general boards and agencies of the church. Estimates are that the 2008 General Conference will cost $1.3 million more than the 2004 General Conference, even though shorter by two days, mainly because of the increased costs posed by more international delegates. It is also true that many of the Central Conferences (regional or national divisions of the UM Church outside the U.S.) are not currently able to cover their entire share of general church costs. This means the financial burden for functioning as a worldwide church falls more heavily upon U.S. members.

A U.S. Central Conference?
A task force has been studying this issue for the past four years and is coming with a proposal to the 2008 General Conference that could dramatically alter the way our church is structured. The proposal involves constitutional amendments that would permit the United Methodist Church in the U.S. to become its own Central Conference, dealing with U.S. concerns and culture. The General Conference would then become a smaller group of representatives from all the Central Conferences (including the U.S.) that would deal with worldwide concerns.

The Renewal and Reform Coalition believes this proposal is inadvisable for a variety of reasons.

• The proposal was developed mainly by a U.S.-based task force, with minimal input from Central Conference leaders, particularly in Africa. To impose a U.S.-based solution on the challenges of being a worldwide church would continue the perception of U.S. dominance, rather than truly recognizing the importance of our worldwide membership.

• The proposal adds another layer of bureaucracy to an already bloated organizational structure. A U.S. Central Conference would have its own agencies and structure, which would increase costs and make the church less responsive to rapidly changing cultural and demographic challenges. A recent survey researching the “State of the Church” found that 61-72 percent of United Methodists believe that “the organizational structure of the church uses too [many] … financial and human resources in administration and bureaucracy.” We do not want to make the problem worse.

• The items reserved for the General Conference to handle (doctrinal standards, Social Principles, ordination standards, general boards and agencies, and more) constitute the majority of the current Book of Discipline. By including the Social Principles, the proposal fails to eliminate probably the most culturally determined part of the Discipline, defeating the purpose of making the change in the first place. And by keeping the general agencies as part of the worldwide church, it will have minimal impact on overall costs. The solution does not really solve the perceived problem.

• On the other hand, since the items reserved for General Conference action are not enacted legislatively under the proposed 2008 constitutional amendments, they could change in the future. That means that the constitutional changes could be approved (by a 2/3 majority) under one set of assumptions about how the final structure would work, but a future General Conference could change those assumptions by only a simple majority vote. In essence, we would be buying something sight unseen.

• Some suspect that (intentionally or not) the effect of creating a U.S. Central Conference would be permitting the U.S. church to liberalize its position on social issues, such as homosexuality. Such a course could lead to a situation currently being experienced by the Episcopal Church, which may be evicted from the worldwide Anglican Communion because it allows gay marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals (including an openly gay bishop). This is a recipe for disaster for the United Methodist Church, creating potential down the road for separation and schism in the church.

Our alternative
United Methodism in the U.S. does not need to turn inward or alienate itself from the influence of our brothers and sisters in our worldwide church. We need the full participation and full voice of United Methodists in Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America. We can, however, take some steps to become more effective as a worldwide church.

First, we can provide more resources for ministerial training. The church’s most critical need, particularly in Africa, is trained pastoral leadership. The number of new churches being started in many areas is outstripping the supply of trained leaders to pastor those churches. We can begin by allotting 10 percent of the Ministerial Education Fund apportionment for ministerial training in the non-U.S. Central Conferences. This change would allow us to provide a consistent base of support for seminaries and other forms of pastoral training in all the Central Conferences.

Second, we can make a shift in our perspective as leaders of the United Methodist Church. We can begin looking at issues from a worldwide perspective, rather than a narrow parochialism. We can enact statements that embrace various cultures and nations, rather than statements that reflect only a U.S. cultural situation. We can simplify our organizational structure and procedures, so they are more readily adaptable for use in other countries. We can learn how the church functions in Mozambique, Germany, and the Philippines, not just how it functions in Georgia, California, or New York.

Doctrinal issues
In addition to our concern regarding a U.S. Central Conference, the Reform and Renewal Coalition is also concerned about doctrinal issues that will help pave the way for spiritual renewal in our denomination.

Did you know that teachers at some of our United Methodist seminaries are not required to be Christians? Did you know that there are theology professors at our United Methodist seminaries who are not required to affirm United Methodist doctrine? Therefore, we are proposing that future professors hired for tenured or tenure-track positions must affirm their agreement with classical Christian theology, as defined by the Apostles’ Creed. We additionally propose that persons hired for teaching positions within the theology department must affirm their agreement with United Methodist doctrine, as defined by the Doctrinal Standards (¶103).

Under these proposals, professors would certainly not be barred from presenting alternative theological perspectives in their classes. But they would be teaching these perspectives from a viewpoint sympathetic to United Methodism, rather than from a viewpoint that opposes it. We believe this would be the best environment to build the faith of future United Methodist clergy and strengthen the United Methodist Church, which ought to be the primary goal of our seminaries. Persons who do not fit these qualifications could still be brought in to teach occasional courses to round out the seminary experience, if needed. But the overall environment of the seminary would be supportive of Christian and United Methodist doctrine, rather than hostile to it.

Did you know that there is no requirement in The Book of Discipline that the coursework taken by local pastors be consistent with the doctrinal and ethical standards of the United Methodist Church? Some Course of Study classes are taught in a way that undermines United Methodist doctrine or the Social Principles of our church. The current Discipline requires that such course work be in a program approved by the Division of Ordained Ministry. But the current Discipline does not require the Division to take into account our United Methodist doctrine and ethics. Therefore, we propose adding the requirement that “All classes in the Course of Study shall be taught consistently with the doctrinal and ethical standards of the United Methodist Church, as reflected in the Doctrinal Standards (¶103) and Social Principles (¶160-166) of The Book of Discipline.”

We also believe that schools, colleges, universities, and theological schools that receive support from the United Methodist Church ought to have a “mission and philosophy consistent with the mission and doctrine of the United Methodist Church.” Since these institutions are receiving money from our church members and are accountable to the University Senate, they should be engaging in mission and ministry that are consistent with what our church believes in and promotes.

Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.

General Conference By Tom Lambrecht A Worldwide Church

General Conference
By Tom Lambrecht
A Worldwide Church