Site
Contents
 |
General Information about the Area Office
North Indiana Conference Office
South Indiana Conference Office
Prayer Guides
(Courtesy of the NIC Prayer Team)
Area United Methodist
Foundation
For resources to assist your congregation in welcoming guests,
click here
Seashore District Volunteer Center VIM project -- Completed
Hoosier United Methodist News Archives
| Hoosier United Methodists together |
March 2004 |
Living into the Future: Is it time for a restructure?
By John Lovelace
Mention "church restructure" to most United Methodists and they're apt to think of brick-and-mortar add-ons or kitchen renovations. But to the 2004 General Conference's 994 delegates, "church restructure" means another attempt "to determine the most effective design for the work of the general [United Methodist] agencies." That assignment implies that the current design, basically unchanged since its adoption in 1972, is not "the most effective."
For a church operating on four continents and grappling to understand its "global nature," the issue involves tens of millions of dollars, thousands of employees and hundreds of policy-setting directors.
'Common table' would oversee agencies
Delegates to the 2004 legislative assembly will consider a proposal for church redesign, titled "Living Into the Future." Attached to the six-page proposal are 21 pages of proposed legislative changes.
Since 1972, under the principle that "mission" and "money" should be kept separate for accountability and auditing purposes, two general agencies have provided programmatic and financial oversight to all other agencies fueled wholly or in part by the omnibus World Service Fund. Those oversight agencies are the General Council on Ministries (programmatic) and the General Council on Finance and Administration (financial).
"Living Into the Future" would eliminate both those agencies and replace them with a common "Connectional Table," whose purpose would be "optimum stewardship of finances and ministries."
Currently, all 10 agencies now accountable to the General Council on Ministries would be represented at and accountable to the Connectional Table. They are the General Board of Church and Society, the General Board of Discipleship, the General Board of Global Ministries, the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, the General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, the General Commission on Religion and Race, the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women, the General Commission on Archives and History, the General Commission on United Methodist Men and the General Commission on Communication. ("General" in the names means the agency has churchwide responsibilities; most of the agencies have counterparts in annual conferences, districts and local congregations.)
The Connectional Table would comprise a maximum 131 people, using the following formula:
-
One from each of the 64 U.S. annual conferences;
-
Three from each of seven central conferences outside the U.S.;
-
Up to 12 members-at-large for a balance of laity-clergy, racial-ethnic background, gender and geography;
-
Up to 14 bishops; and
-
General secretaries and presidents of the 10 agencies accountable to the Connectional Table.
Under the plans, two administrative agencies not dependent on World Service funding -- the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits and the United Methodist Publishing House -- would remain outside the Connectional Table, but their presidents and general secretaries may sit at the table with voice but without vote.
Any informed look at what may be decided April 27-May 7 in Pittsburgh can't avoid looking back at what might have been.
More drastic plan arose in 2001
The General Council on Ministries holds the sole mandate from the 2000 General Conference "to determine the most effective design for the work of the general agencies."
At the council's meeting in October 2001, its then-new general secretary, Daniel Church, proposed that all free-standing, semi-autonomous entities with their own boards -- in other words, all those related to the two oversight councils -- be dissolved. In their stead, he proposed a single "General Board of the United Methodist Church."
"Bold, radical changes," Church called them, better ways to "meet spiritual needs and spend money more wisely."
One supporter said Church had correctly defined the issue as "turf battles" among the agencies and had said "what bishops and every task force, annual conference and local church had been saying for 20 years."
In addition to proposing to collapse all boards into one, Church envisioned a bicameral legislative structure consisting of something like the current half-clergy, half-laity General Conference and, separately, a "House of Bishops."
One year and countless e-mails, phone calls, letters, articles and ruffled feathers later, however, the radicalizing of collapsing all boards into one had itself collapsed, along with the idea of bicameral legislature.
In its place was a "dramatic departure": to combine the general program (GCOM) and finance councils (GCFA), so the general church could "decide mission and money matters at one table."
A writing team took it from there, producing the "Living Into the Future" document as amended and adopted by GCOM on Sept. 8, 2003.
John Lovelace is a freelance writer and editor in Dallas. He is a former editor of the Dallas-based United Methodist Reporter.
Last updated on 04/19/2004