Relections on General Conference #1

                      The General Conference of the United Methodist Church recently finished its quadrennial meeting.  What was supposed to be a meeting in which major structure change was to take place and processes to make the ministry of the United Methodist Church more nimble turned into disappointment for some as not much was accomplished, and in the eyes of many pastors trust and covenant was broken.  As I have thought about what has happened the last few weeks in Tampa, FL, I have come to some conclusions.  This article is mine and mine alone, and some of ideas discussed in it are probably not what the “leadership” of the denomination wants to hear.  In this post I will talk about a few of the major issues and my take on it.  They are written in the order I think of them not in the importance I place on them.  I will break this up into several different blog posts for ease of reading.  Let me say I am also not opposed to change if it is needed and it is implemented fairly.  The Call to Action and the follow-up done on the report is not necessarily a just or fair document for a large segment of the United Methodist Church.

  1.  The response to the Call to Action Report-The Call to Action was a report issued last year by one of the groups commissioned by either the General Conference or the Council of Bishops.  Prepared by an outside agency that looked at many statistics the conclusions reached were most of the congregations of the United Methodist Church in the United States were ineffective in accomplishing the mission of the United Methodist Church, there were trust issues at all levels of the church, a lot of ineffective ministers, and the organization was a 1950s style in a 21^st century world.  There were other items, but I believe the biggest ones were the ones listed in the previous sentence.  The report, as I said in an earlier blog post, seemed to me to be outcomes looking for a report.  All these items had been talked about for quite some time and now there was a way to make it look snappy while trumpeting the doom of the UMC if these changes were not made.  The response to the Call to Action was, for the most part, backlash.
            A team had worked on a restructuring plan that eliminated, merged, and cut the size of the general boards and agencies.  The overall oversight for the denomination would be delegated to a small board of 15 people.  The number of people involved in overseeing the other boards and agencies would be cut down as well.  The shrinkage and elimination of boards, agencies, and directors as well as consolidating the power into such a small group raised many issues.  Some of the issues raised were a) how would inclusiveness of gender, ethnicity/race, and theological differences be ensured; b) how would the current work be affected; c) was all of the work and issues that had been raised when the commissions/boards slated for elimination had been authorized?  If not who would continue the work/would the work get the same attention?  And, while it probably shouldn’t have there was probably some fiefdom/turf protection going on as well.

            There were two plans put forth to the General Conference, one backed by the leadership the other by the Methodist Federation for Social Action.  A third plan(Plan B), while not submitted officially, also was factoring into what would get passed.  In the process of being vetted and either being recommended or not recommended by a legislative group of the General Conference, it became obvious there was a lot of dissent even among the delegates.  Because of the divisiveness of the proposals there was not recommendation from the committee of either plan, and for a while it looked as if there would be no vote on any plan because of the rules saying it had to come from a legislative committee to amke it to the General Conference's floor for discussion and vote.  Through a lot of finagling and finesse, and representatives from all three plans working together, a plan was put together, presented, amended, voted on, approved, and then struck down by the Judicial Council as not being in accord with the denomination’s constitution.  Some people are quite happy there is no reorganization this quadrennium while others are very upset. 
            As I have thought about the restructuring I have come to the conclusion our organization is not the problem.  The United Methodist Church is a global organization of over eleven million people.  To effectively manage and deliver resources is going to require a fairly large organization.  Does that mean it cannot be tweaked, new boards created or old ones eliminated?  No, it doesn’t.  In fact they probably need to be tweaked.  In my opinion what probably needs to happen is the boards and agencies become more user friendly and have a bigger impact upon all the local congregations.  Resources need to be made available that are user friendly and more affordable.  The internet needs to be used more effectively.  The General Boards and Agencies should work more cooperatively.  My perception is our denomination’s organizational groups are much like the federal government’s security agencies before 9-11-2001.  There is not enough cooperation because everyone wants to protect their territory or they don’t like someone or something.  The boards and agencies should be held to uphold the standards and doctrine of the United Methodist Church and should not look for loopholes to get around the polity, discipline, or doctrine of the denomination.  Some of the boards and agencies, and their general and assistant secretaries seem to push ideas that are not always in line with the UMC’s stated positions.  The issues surrounding sexuality is probably the most notable example of this.

            I also have been wondering if the leadership of the denomination learned anything from the 2008 General Conference when a major restructuring proposal from the leadership came forward to be voted on, and because of the need for constitutional amendments, votes in the individual annual conferences.  While the restructure was approved by the GC, at the annual conference level it was rejected.  As I recall the most common reason for voting no was that no one knew how the restructuring would look or what exactly it would do.  Yes, there were some who wondered about their fiefdoms, inclusiveness, or something else, but people wanted to know how it would work and the effects it would have on people.  The standard answer was, to paraphrase from the best of my recollection, “We don’t know, just trust us that it will be for the best.”

            And that brings us to the next topic, trust in the United Methodist Church.