Perhaps no other issue before the 2008 General Conference has the potential to impact the future of United Methodism more than the report and the proposed legislation from the Task Force on the Global Nature of the Church.  This high-powered from-the-top down proposal (or series of proposals) carries the weight of the Connectional Table and the Council of Bishops. 

The report needs to be studied closely but basically it calls for making United Methodism in the United States a “Central Conference” which will act as a United States General Conference and meet after the world-wide General Conference each four years.  This Central Conference will deal with matters of interest to the United States while the regular General Conference will deal with matters that have to do with world-wide United Methodism.

On paper the proposals make sense.  The present General Conference, The Book of Discipline, and The Book of Resolutions reflect the problems and issues of the United States.  They are, to use a new phrase, “US-Centric.”  Overseas delegates to our General Conference seem like spectators rather than participants.   It is telling that our 2004 Discipline is not even translated into French, the language now spoken by 15% of United Methodists.   

If this looks good on paper why are there reservations?   The truth is these proposals raise suspicions.   It is time to begin a frank discussion on what these suspicions are.

UM membership in the United States is decreasing.  UM membership in other parts of the world, and especially in Africa, is increasing dramatically.   With increasing numbers African UMs are beginning to speak of responsibility and leadership in the world-wide church.   Other denominations are facing a similar situation.  The Episcopalians in America, along with the British Anglicans, are no longer the dominant voice in the world-wide Anglican Communion, and resent Africans (and others) telling them how the church is to be run (especially when it relates to matters like Biblical authority and the practice of homosexuality).   The progressives, whether Episcopal, Presbyterian, or United Methodist, don’t like the idea of overseas (basically-evangelical) Christians intruding on their domain. When open to the scrutiny of world Christianity, U.S. “progressive” thought does not fly. 

The Global Nature Task Force reports speaks grandly of a new structure to enhance mission and how this new structure (read added layers of bureaucracy) will allow central conferences (national church groups) to be free to go their own way without interference from others.  Central conferences would still be accountable to the General Conference.   Theological and moral issues would still be handled by the General Conference.  

The truth is we have no way of knowing if it would work in that way.  The proposal in many ways is sailing off into uncharted waters.  What looks good on paper is quite likely to develop far differently in actual practice.

A conversation at the 2004 General Conference is telling.  An American delegate was speaking to an African delegate (the context was homosexuality):  “Our culture is different from yours.  What you consider wrong or sinful we don’t understand in that way at all.  You should not judge us.”   There will probably be more rather than fewer of these kinds of discussions in the future.    No wonder there is suspicion.

More on this later.

    A report, “Operational Assessment of the Connectional Church,” conducted by an...

   More Christians were martyred in the 20th Century than in the previous nineteen...

    I was speaking with a fellow pastor several years ago and inquired whether he...