by

January 23, 2012

Do you like this?

Call to Action Structure

Graphic Courtesy of MFSA

Call to Action Structure

TAMPA – The radical restructure plan for The United Methodist Church prepared by the Connectional Table, often confused with the Council of Bishops' effort known as the Call to Action, isn't as much of a "done deal" as has been supposed, judging by tough questions and resistance that emerged during the Jan. 19-21 Pre-General Conference Briefing.

The briefing for 2012 General Conference delegates and church communicators also uncovered less well-publicized efforts taking place parallel to the Connectional Table and Call to Action that could provide less extreme reorganization, yet still achieve cost savings and operational efficiency to offset declines in the denomination's human and financial resources.

Among the eye-openers at the Pre-General Conference Briefing:

  • Many delegates complained that the answers they received from Call to Action, Vital Congregations and restructure proponents lacked specific details about any adverse effects the proposal could have on the denomination. "It sounds too much like, 'Just trust us, we know what we're doing,'" complained a delegate who asked not to be named.
  • Highly placed sources confided to UM Insight that the Connectional Table consulted none of the denomination's top staff executives during the process of creating the restructure legislation. There were also reports among delegates that agency executives have been pressured by proponents to get behind the plan rather than offer alternatives or question its components.
  • At the same time that the Connectional Table restructure was being created and promoted, 10 of the 11 current United Methodist boards and agencies adopted plans to cut the number of their directors by half, trimming some 266 positions from the 596 directors currently selected among U.S. delegates. Delegates and communicators alike were surprised to learn the extent of these parallel efforts.
  • United Methodists outside the United States see Call to Action and the Connectional Table restructure as ways for the American branch of the denomination to hang on to political power rather than share it with church leaders across Africa, Europe and the Philippines, according to the Rev. Forbes Matonga, vice dean of Africa University in Zimbabwe who serves on the Committee to Study the Worldwide Nature of The United Methodist Church
  • Other representatives of the worldwide church study group noted during their presentation that restructuring the denomination for a more equitable power structure had been their assignment from the 2008 General Conference. As a result of the Connectional Table usurping the restructure task halfway through the 2009-2012 timetable, commission members said that they elected not to submit any reorganization recommendations to the 2012 General Conference.

Nine Agencies into One Center 

Although Call to Action focuses on church growth through its Vital Congregations program (which has already been implemented by the Council of Bishops), the Connectional Table structure component involves collapsing nine of the current 11 United Methodist boards and agencies into a single "Center for Connectional Mission and Ministry" under the direction of a 15-member board. This center would have four offices:

Tags

, , , , ,

by

January 23, 2012

Comments (4)

Comment Feed

membership 'problem'

everywhere, a mention of loosing members in the United States. of course, the rejection of our lgbt sisters and brothers, other relatives and friends is non-productive if we want to increase or even maintain membership. Giving us a "second class" membership (Pay your tithe and do work in the congregation....but don't ask us to acknowledge and bless your relationships, and certainly don't ask us to acknowledge both your call to be married and to answer a call to ministry--without promising to remain celibate!) This treatment of some of God's creation is NOT BEING JESUS-LIKE. Be honest, this treatment of a minority of God's creation is one of the reasons that the UMC is loosing members.

Elsie Gauley Vega 323 days ago

ambiguity

The article above brings out an age old problem for UMC. "•Many delegates complained that the answers they received from Call to Action, Vital Congregations and restructure proponents lacked specific details about any adverse effects the proposal could have on the denomination." Why does the upper hierarchy always believe it has to build ambiguity into any statement it makes. Why can't it give a clear, concise definition to something? There seems to be a mentality of "we know all the answers, all you have to do is listen to us."--but, of course, the UMC is still declining in the US.

Jabe Fincher more than 1 years ago

Call to Action

From the outset of this effort I have been concerned with the "done deal" approach taken by the judicatory. That approach does not foster reflection, analysis and input; rather, it stifles inquiry and presupposes lock-step support. While the urgent financial realities of the denomination do require action, the Call to Action (CTA) may not be the appropriate vehicle. Furthermore, I have yet to receive a cogent answer to a question I have raised since last spring concerning the CTA. On page 19 of the report, the proponents state that leaders must form strong coalitions in order to forego lesser matters and passionate causes in service of the greater good. Who in the new structure will possess the Solomon-like wisdom to discern the 'greater good'? How will narrow interests and subordinate objectives be defined? Lastly, casting a pejorative light on critical analysis of this plan is contrary to our Wesleyan heritage. I look forward with prayerful anticipation to the opportunity to discern as a body of faith.

LaTrelle Miller Easterling more than 1 years ago

Call to Action

The article noted that "agency executives have been pressured by Call to Action proponents to get behind the plan rather than offer alternatives or question its components." The Council of Bishops is pressuring US delegations to support the CTA, as well. The heavy-handed approach by the proponents may back-fire.

Jim Allen more than 1 years ago