Why I Support Amendments Referring
to the Worldwide Nature of The United Methodist Church

I believe the Christian movement needs a united, worldwide Protestant church to serve God's mission for the world. United Methodism is one of very few churches to be united in its doctrine, mission and discipline while worshipping and serving on four continents. We have a special calling in a world that is increasingly globalized and beset with major problems and challenges. God3s evangelizing, discipling and justice ministries are best served by a church that is globally connected and yet locally diverse.

The number of United Methodists outside the United States is increasing and may soon be 40 percent. Unfortunately, we are still structured as a U.S. church with a few foreign outposts. This is offensive to many of our African, European and Asian sisters and brothers. It is significant that when the Central Conference bishops were asked to consider the task force proposal in the spring of 2007, they voted unanimously in favor of it. We are seeking a shape of The United Methodist Church that provides for greater equality of status while retaining our principle of proportional representation in the General Conference.

The vision behind the constitutional amendments  suggests a shape of The United Methodist Church for the 21st century. It addresses two fundamental questions: What aspects of our church are so essential to our global mission and witness that they must be the same everywhere for United Methodists? Conversely, what aspects are so contextually dependent that they should be adapted to local situations?

The General Conference would retain authority over all matters distinctly connectional as it says in Paragraph 16 of the Constitution. The bishops and Connectional Table have proposed that all matters related to doctrine, Social Principles and ordination standards would continue to be decided by the General Conference and applied worldwide. I have argued in my book Staying at the Table  that the unity of our worldwide church depends upon the General Conference deciding matters of doctrine, discipline and mission for all. These are the things that bind us together!

For example, one part of the church cannot decide in principle not to ordain women. No United Methodist entity can decide to abolish episcopacy. Our basic ministerial orders of local pastors, deacons and elders apply everywhere. All of the Social Principles are truly worldwide in scope. Because of their controversial nature (think of homosexuality, abortion, racism and sexism), they must continue to be decided at the worldwide level by General Conference or else our church will split.

At the same time, other decisions should be decided by jurisdictions, annual conferences, districts or local churches. The General Conference does not determine how many districts an annual conference should have nor does it set the salaries of pastors. In recent times, greater structural flexibility has been appropriately given to annual conferences and local churches.

The work of the Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church will help work out the details of this basic vision.

Central to the vision is that, while the most important and unifying decisions are made by the General Conference, some decisions should be made regionally. The legislation proposes that there be a regional conference grouping together every annual conference. This would mean that the General Conference (which decides how many central or regional conferences there are and sets their boundaries) would create one or more regional conferences in the United States. This would be of great help for U.S. churches to discuss issues like the hymnal, new church planting, seminaries, the Black College Fund and other issues that are unique to us. Similar regional issues should be discussed at regional meetings in Africa, Europe and Asia. At present, there is no clarity about what belongs to the region to decide and what belongs solely to the General Conference. There is also no purely U.S.-centered forum where these issues are discussed. They happen either at the jurisdictional level or at the worldwide (general) level.

The plan envisions that the General Conference would meet first, and in the succeeding months of that year the regional conferences would meet.

So far, I have not addressed the name change from central to regional. The word "central" was applied to this level of Methodist conferencing in the 19th century to allow annual conferences in India to work together without reference to the U.S.-dominated General Conference. In addition, the word "central" has connotations of racism, because of its use by the church for the Central Jurisdiction in the United States between 1939 and 1968. The shift to "regional" better expresses what these conferences do: address issues unique to the mission and ministry of conferences in that region.

* Read the Rev. Eddie Fox's rebuttal to this commentary here.