by

June 15, 2012

Do you like this?

Bishop Jack M. Tuell

UMNS Photo

Bishop Jack M. Tuell

Has the General Conference become dysfunctional? Many outside observers, watching almost 1,000 delegates struggle in a cavernous, dimly lit hall in Tampa trying to make informed and intelligent decisions together, may well have wondered. Very little was accomplished, even though there was much to be done.

The United Methodist Church has undertaken a bold challenge in the way we govern our denomination. We are the only major Christian church in the world that seeks to do two things: (1) Be truly a global church; and (2) be a church that is truly democratically governed by its ordinary lay and clergy members. The Roman Catholic Church is global, but obviously does not pretend to be democratically governed. Other major Protestant churches are all essentially national churches, though some are bound together by loose international ties.

This twofold challenge is daunting and helps explain some of the trauma and dysfunction evident at the 2012 General Conference. It is hard to make democracy work in a legislative body with members from such disparate cultures. The language issue is a big one, but not as big as the deep differences of history, sociology and culture out of which our delegates come. To expect them in a 10-day meeting once in four years to arrive at a consensus on the vast array of structural, pastoral, economic, social and spiritual issues confronting them is truly unrealistic.

We have managed to get by in the past because, although we have been global, the membership figures resulted in a heavily U.S.-dominated body that tended to decide matters out of a shared U.S. cultural background in ways prescribed by U.S. methods. This has now dramatically shifted and will shift further.

So what do we do and where do we go?

I am convinced of three things:

  1. We are essentially doing the right thing in our twofold approach to governance (being global and democratic), although some tweaking is called for. The Church of Jesus Christ is global and calls for a structure that is global. There is something contradictory about a national church because the Word of God in Christ is so clearly to all people everywhere. And, God has put the mark of worth and dignity and freedom on every human being, so arrangements for governance of human institutions, whether secular or religious, should incorporate means for the voice and will of their ordinary membership in determining direction and policy. We call this democracy. 
  2. We need to have the General Conference be a body that deals essentially with broad matters of the Articles of Religion, the Constitution and other distinctly global concerns. It might meet only every eight years. A large portion of the “nuts and bolts work” that the current General Conference does would be delegated to regional conferences, which would continue to meet every four years.
  3. The big gap in our structure is a regional conference structure that would include the United States as one of its regions. The rest of the world already has its “regional” conferences in the form of the Central Conferences. Both our Constitution and Book of Discipline already grant to these conferences certain freedom to write their own “Disciplines,” provided “that no action shall be taken that is contrary to the Constitution and the General Rules of The United Methodist Church, and provided that the spirit of the connectional relationship is kept between the local and the general church.” (Paragraph 543.7, 2008 Book of Discipline)

These ideas are not new. They have, in fact, been the subject of major discussion and debate among leaders, both lay and clergy, from all parts of our church. They are big ideas and not subject to easy resolution. But if we keep an open, contrite, listening and searching spirit, God will surely open the way toward being the church God is calling us to be.

Bishop Jack M. Tuell is a retired United Methodist bishop living in Des Moines, Wash. Prior to becoming ordained as a United Methodist elder, he was a practicing attorney and is considered a pre-eminent expert in church law.

by

June 15, 2012

Comments (6)

Comment Feed

One More Difference

I agree with Bishop Tuell (which may be a surprise to both of us!) But there is one more issue that makes us distinctively different from other Protestant denominations: we operate on a "sent" system rather than a "call" system. The latter is where local churches 'call' their own pastor, whom they select, even if from a limited universe of clergy who have "standing" in any particular area. Our system of sending out clergy by Episcopal appointment, in theory, at least, gives us the freedom to have clergy sent to serve churches who need their particular expertise at any given point in time. It worked well when clergy were all single, or clergy spouses were not employed outside the home. Likewise, when the life expectancy of clergy was not as long as it is now, retired clergy did not live much longer than the time of their retirement.
Now, when clergy spouses typically work outside the home and have their own employment, and when (as it is in CA where I'm from), if a pastor cannot afford to buy a house while still in the active relationship, s/he won't have the capital appreciation to afford to buy a house within the bounds of his/her own annual conference when s/he retires.
These are economic realities in the world in which we are called to live in, but not be "of." Would a "call" system be more practical? I doubt it. I watch churches that operate within "call" systems, who have to go without a pastor for 18-30 months before they find a new pastor to "call." That hurts a church far more then theological differences. But those denominations have one thing that could help us keep more focus on our primary ministry: helping Disciples grow through the process of sanctification. That one difference is that they have persons who carry out the specific task of "interim" pastors. They are trained to help heal a congregation that is split, help churches figure out what they need, and can become the "sacrificial lambs" following a long-time pastor knowing that this is their role, rather than feeling guilty for not being able to help a church change following that long-term pastor.
If we could find ways to train clergy, perhaps those in the last decade of their ministry, be available to take shorter-term appointments that would help pave the way for a new pastor to come in ready to help that church move into a new phase of its life without fighting the battle of not being "beloved Rev. Pastor" who came before him/her, we could have the best parts of both systems.
That, more than eliminating guaranteed appointment (which is the flip side of the same coin of having a "sent" system), would, IMHO, help us move on to being a significant voice in the US in the 21st century.

Tom Griffith 363 days ago

Trauma & Dysfunction

Sage wisdom by the bishop. Jeff Conn is spot on.

However, by following Bishop Tuell’s suggestions, we could create a central conference for the USA, elect bishops there, and do away with jurisdictional conferences. Think of the money saved, and if nothing else occurs at “general conference,” at least we would have elected some bishops.

Naw . . . that won’t work. I think the northeast and west might be afraid of getting a bishop from the southeast or south central who might emphasize outreach and evangelism.

Allison Cambre more than 1 years ago

Democracy and Peace

True Democracy is an ideal government to avoid civil war. There is input from all concerns; so, no one gets their way entirely and no one is entirely defeated. This reduces the critical need to leave and rebel. One has to accept that a clear and decisive course of action is unlikely except for very clear situations where there is only one course of action.
In the past our church has taken action by majority without consensus leading to so many different forms of Methodism. These brakes if we look back are usually relevant to a particular place and time. For example, one is Protestant Methodism.
In our mergers of 1968 we affirmed the important faith we hold in common and realized we need to embrace each other as Christians. Other issues were not as important. Ironical we have been disagreeing ever since.
Perhaps we need to embrace our differences in Christian dialoged. We need to recognize and cherish the Christian understandings of our opponents. From that position we may grow in true Christian love. If we cannot come to one position, maybe we should not. We should continue to discuss not argue until we truly understand or the issue become mute.



Ron McKinstry more than 1 years ago

Back to the Basics

If we agree that we are Methodists, can we not begin with the scripture and John Wesley's way of living it out? Sure Methodists around the globe believe in the same basic things, Wesley's essentials We believe in one God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; we believe that Jesus was at once totally human and totally God, and that he died to offer us salvation from the sure penalty for our sins; we believe that the Holy Spirit is present in the body of Christ, the church. These are the eternal truths. Are not cultural differences transitory? The apostles mediated between the jewish converts and the gentile converts and by naming some of the Hellenistic Christians to minister with them.Are we not one body? One church? the General Conference should preside over the substance and practice of our beliefs, and let each jurisdiction and central conference deal with their cultural interpretations of them.

geri rapino more than 1 years ago

how can we become regional?

I hear your cncerns, Bishop, but how do we get folks to vote for the US being a regional conference when that would end their control over homosexuality? They won't go for it. maybe if we defy the rules often enough they will be glad to let us go?

Jeff Conn more than 1 years ago

World Wide Nature of the Church

I applaud the realistic assessment of the Global Nature of the Church as presented by Bishop Jack Tuell. It has to be a global structure that is democratic in governance, diverse in composition and sharing in support.
I come from the experience of being in a missionary church attaining autonomy in management its mission in its own national context and maintaining affiliation and seeking alliances outside the country to fulfill its responsibility in a globalized situation.
The need is to develop the status as envisaged in the "regional conferences" and allow US Methodism and other remaining Central Conferences to engage more fully and authentically in its own mission. .
Only then can we relate to regional conferences and other affiliated autonomous Methodist churches because of our shared history and common commitment to collaborate to respond to issues nationally and internationally.

Yap Kim Hao more than 1 years ago

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

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™