Which way to a Worldwide Church?
Monday, June 01, 2009
As I indicated in my last post, I've been writing a commentary that addresses the "Worldwide Church" amendments that annual conferences of the United Methodist Church are debating and voting on this summer. That commentary is finished, and you can download it at the following link:
"Which way to a Worldwide Church?"
I know some annual conferences have already met. But for anyone from an annual conference that has not yet met - like my own Arkansas Conference - I'd ask you to consider the point of view in this commentary. (Heck, you might even want to read it even if your annual conference is already over.) There have been a number of 'pro' and 'con' arguments put forth for the restructure of the church, and I don't think any of them have considered adequately how the change to our church's polity could lead to a form of nationalism that has always been destructive of the Christian Church and destructive of Christian discipleship.
For the record, I am against the Worldwide Church proposal as it has been put forth. We definitely need to do something in the long run about the way the Constitution of the UMC is biased toward the American church, but this proposal is not the way to go.
I welcome conversation on this topic - both critical and constructive - in the 'comments' section of this post. I'm eager to hear others' thoughts, particularly points of view that have not been raised in many of the conventional 'pro' and 'con' arguments over the Worldwide Church amendments.
I also hope that church folk will bear in mind how significantly our ecclesial life can be affected over the course of years by today's changes in how the church is organized and governed. The devolution of our connectionalism may seem the easiest answer to our challenges in the present. But we should be careful not to sow the wind, lest we someday have to reap the whirlwind.
"Which way to a Worldwide Church?"
I know some annual conferences have already met. But for anyone from an annual conference that has not yet met - like my own Arkansas Conference - I'd ask you to consider the point of view in this commentary. (Heck, you might even want to read it even if your annual conference is already over.) There have been a number of 'pro' and 'con' arguments put forth for the restructure of the church, and I don't think any of them have considered adequately how the change to our church's polity could lead to a form of nationalism that has always been destructive of the Christian Church and destructive of Christian discipleship.
For the record, I am against the Worldwide Church proposal as it has been put forth. We definitely need to do something in the long run about the way the Constitution of the UMC is biased toward the American church, but this proposal is not the way to go.
I welcome conversation on this topic - both critical and constructive - in the 'comments' section of this post. I'm eager to hear others' thoughts, particularly points of view that have not been raised in many of the conventional 'pro' and 'con' arguments over the Worldwide Church amendments.
I also hope that church folk will bear in mind how significantly our ecclesial life can be affected over the course of years by today's changes in how the church is organized and governed. The devolution of our connectionalism may seem the easiest answer to our challenges in the present. But we should be careful not to sow the wind, lest we someday have to reap the whirlwind.
Labels: Annual Conference, Ecclesiology, Nationalism, UM Constitutional Amendments
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 4:41 PM
2 Comments:
Great article. As for a long-term solution, I actually heard an opposite proposal from what you suggested: that instead of getting rid of the Jurisdictions, re-name all central conferences as jurisdictions and give them the same authority as jurisdictions (if they don't already have the same authority). Some of the smaller central conferences could even combine to make fewer jurisdictions.
Again, great analysis of the amendments and possible alternatives, as I think alternatives should be discussed now so that delegates realize that other less complicated and less risky alternatives are available to enhance the worl-wide nature of the UMC.
Andrew,
Thanks for such a clear, thorough, and passionate argument against the "worldwide church amendments." Regardless of the outcome of this year's vote, this conversation will continue for several more years. While I fear that the amendments will pass this year, even if they do, there are 3 years until the General Conference can act on them. Hopefully in that time, others will catch on to your argument and see the wrong-headedness of these amendments.
Post a Comment
<< Home