by

May 16, 2012

Do you like this?

Young Clergy

UMNS Photo by Mike DuBose

Young United Methodist clergy listen to the Rev. Adam Hamilton in a session where they expressed their deep concerns about the proposed restructuring of The United Methodist Church.

United Methodist Church General Conference wonk-fest

I don't know Andy Langford. I have read (and really appreciated) some of his stuff, I respect his work on the Connectional Table, I hear he's a great pastor and a good leader. I also acknowledge that he's a five-time delegate to General Conference, and I am but a second-year provisional member of the North Georgia Conference (and an associate pastor, to boot!). Maybe I should just shut up here and let things go along without trying to get a word in.

But that's not really who I am, and I want to respond to his recent blog post about the state of things post-General Conference (and, in turn, several other post-mortems I've been digesting).

I followed General Conference very closely, as I think a lot about institutional-type things. I am especially interested in how institutions and structures affect the local church's charge to make disciples. I have seen, among many delegates (especially those for whom this was not their first rodeo) a deep resentment--in some cases, a hot anger--at the institutional roadblocks to change. For some, it was liberal delegates who prayed for everything to stay the same. For others, it was as if General Conference was held hostage. For others, multiple constituencies hijacked the agenda to avoid talking about other difficult issues (sexuality, of course, being the main culprit). Still others blame the Judicial Council, as if the JC should have just gone along with the body because the vote was 60%, which is 10% more than 50%!

Forgive me for sounding glib, but there is one thing not being discussed--and perhaps we are all just trying to be polite . . . but I will get back to that. I want to first respond to Langford's post, because it contains within it a couple of things I am either having trouble understanding (legitimately possible) or that I am having trouble swallowing (because I find problems with the arguments presented). I suppose you could say that I disagree with that which he presents as the diagnosis and the cure.

First, there is this:

The single greatest institutional problem that hinders effective congregations is our general church agencies.

I have heard this argument in a couple of different places, and I must tell you that it makes absolutely no sense to me. I am not even really sure how to analyze it. Truly, the biggest institutional problem we have is our general church agencies?! To take the argument just a bit further, Langford seems to be saying that the institutional problems of clergy effectiveness, young clergy recruitment, the lack of an open itineracy for women and people of color, confusion about our doctrine, the increasing expectations of District Superintendents and Bishops, the issues surrounding numerical decline in the United States, a lack of clarity about how cultural contexts affect theology and polity (not to mention problems with the fact that the Central Conferences have say in the General Conference in ways that General Conference does not in the Central Conferences), structural issues of mistrust . . . all of these are smaller institutional problems than our general church agencies? None of these issues keep us from our mission more than our general church agencies?

Tags

,

by

May 16, 2012

Comments (6)

Comment Feed

It Was an Anti-Wonk Fest

I was at General Conference from the opening to the closing gavels. What troubled me is that all of the proposed changes in the church came from well-intentioned folks who even see themselves as visionary---but they failed to understand the institutional realities of The United Methodist Church. That is why restructuring failed. Would that the real "wonks," the bean counters and the ones who study the ins-and-outs of our polity, and the history out of which it had developed, been proposing the restructuring.

United Methodism's polity and structure make this church the last relatively unadulterated institution in the U.S. that operates on the historical political form known as "Jacksonian Democracy." Once a member, everyone is elected to everything, and each group has delegates that vote for those who go higher. Even candidates for the Ordained Ministry have to be voted upon by their Charge Conferences. And, those who have a majority vote, win. "Winning" has been accomplished by creating enough "seats" at the various levels of leadership that folks from every constituency have a realistic chance of being voted into one. That is why we have had such large and perhaps unwieldy boards and agencies.

Being "nimble" and hopefully "efficient," as all of the restructuring efforts envisioned, meant cutting down the number of decision makers in our denominational boards and agencies. If people feel that they, or those who share their viewpoints, won't have a chance to get elected to a seat at the table of decision-making, they will rebel against the change. Because we come out of that "Jacksonian Democracy" model, "efficiency" and being "nimble" are both going to be difficult to accomplish.

Likewise, we have such a large number of boards and agencies because historically we did that to make sure that most constituencies got represented. Those who sought to consolidate the program agencies apparently forgot the "shotgun wedding" that created the General Board of Discipleship out of five previous programmatic agencies---or the infighting and the quarter-century that it took before that "wedding" was finally consummated.

The visionaries who dreamed up the various proposals for restructuring failed to look at the long history of Judicial Council rulings regarding the restructuring of Annual Conferences. They required, because the General Conference previously said so, all of the connections between Annual Conferences, local churches, and General Church Agencies be maintained intact. There are literally hundred of those kinds of connections in this "connectional" church. Even a conference of real "wonks" would have to take a lot of time doing detailed work to make sure they were all "attached."

Being a visionary, or even being "prophetic," is fine---but someone has to count the beans, the money, the connections, within a firm knowledge of the heritage that created what is. Alas, those folks weren't "visionary" enough to be invited to the table.

Tom Griffith 282 days ago

good starting point for conversation

Thank you, Dalton for dealing with some important issues in a sensitive way. Your direct experience in Africa gives us valuable insights and you take on the various perspectives in the US that keep us divided.
I must say that my simple solution is to go with Yap Kim Hao's proposal that we figure out a way to separate and maintain our relationships in a different structure. The division between Africa and the US will widen not lessen. We simply do not agree, not only on gays and lesbians but in terms of whether or not our current connection is viable.
I don't know how to separate without schism but it would certainly help if the Council of Bishops spoke honestly and called us not to restructuring but to true national autonomy.

Jeff Conn 363 days ago

Thanks

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I have replied to some of them on the comments on my blog (www.daltonrushing.com). I'm also blogging the book of Acts in response to our reorientation to the future post-GC. Hope that is useful to you.

Dalton Rushing more than 1 years ago

Central Conference

I resonate with Dalton Rushing sentiments about the relationship of Central Conferences and UMC General Conference. He has shown understanding due to his personal involvement as a mission volunteer in Africa. His comments deserve attention and support.

I speak as one who evolved from a Central Conference to an affiliated autonomous status Methodist Church with UMC since 1968.

The time has come for US Methodism to become an autonomous church by itself to further its mission to develop vital congregations. It will require relevant and appropriate boards and agencies to fulfill its calling. It will continue to help existing Central Conferences to develop autonomy and develop its peculiar mission and service in its own local and national context.

The divergence of church development and difference of resources between the respective Central Conferences and US Methodism has to be acknowledged. To bring the disparity together to form one "global" structure of administration is unrealistic in this complex world. It is hard enough to deal with the differences in the local and national context. It is an exercise in futility to manage the differences in a "global" context as Tampa has revealed.

The direction is to develop autonomous churches in each nation and to relate to one another in sharing in mission as it is being done right now in countries like Cambodia forming annual conference for a Methodist Church in the country. This will be pursued further in Vietnam and Laos where Methodism never existed before. This is the form of partnership in mission with other autonomous Methodist churches and moving away from the old pattern of relating annual conferences throughout the world into one General Conference.





Yap Kim Hao more than 1 years ago

Worldwide Church

Some great points, Dalton. I appreciate your interaction with Andy Langford, particularly around what model of church we are following.

I would disagree with you, however, that it was the central conference delegates who held up progress on any of the issues. They voted their consciences and convictions (not because someone "told" them how to vote) on issues of importance to them. They voted against some of the structure plans because they believed the plans would have hurt their interests, which are being served currently by our existing structure. The church's stance on homosexuality is alive issue for them, as it becomes their stance, as well.

I agree that we need to become much less U.S.-centric in our Book of Discipline and much more permission-giving and flexible. That is for all of us, however, not just for Central conference churches.

General Conference did have an opportunity to define which parts of the Book of Discipline are for the global church and which parts can be adapted to fit cultural contexts. The legislative committee (and the plenary session as a result) decided not to decide. That was the biggest missed opportunity to recast our global sense as a church. However, there were many other instances where the global nature of our church did come into play and was acknowledged in our language (of resolutions and petitions).

Tom Lambrecht more than 1 years ago

Dalton Rushing

Dalton, thank you for some very cogent thinking. I look forward to more such rumination from you! Jay Brim

Jay Brim more than 1 years ago

Recent Posts

Blog Categories

Recent Comments

Your generous gifts to United Methodist Insight bring you the best of discernments from longtime church experts and rising leaders. Click on the donate button above or make checks payable to St. Stephen UMC and write "UM Insight" on the memo line. Then post to United Methodist Insight, c/o St. Stephen United Methodist Church, 2520 Oates Drive, Mesquite, TX 75150.
Thanks to our most recent contributors:

David Eichelberger

Continued thanks to our major supporters:
The Joe and Louise Cook Foundation, Temple, TX
Bishop Yap Kim Hao, Methodist Church of Singapore
Anne C. Ewing, First UMC of Germantown, PA
Phil and Joann Susag, Manchester, CT

Get UM Insight's Weekly Update

Sign up for the weekly compilation of UM Insight original content and articles from multiple sources of interest to the future of The United Methodist Church.
  • United Methodist Insight List
Built with Metro Publisher™