Which way to a Worldwide Church?

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.

Amendment 1 (without the baggage)

Annual conferences of the United Methodist Church from all over the world will be voting on the 32 proposed amendments to the church's Constitution in the coming weeks.

The amendments have already generated a great deal of discussion. News articles and blog posts have appeared in print and online. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the whole thing has been the YouTube appeals from figures both prominent and obscure in the church.

I personally approach these kinds of moments at annual conference with fear and trembling. The parliamentary procedure that we use does not allow for the kind of holy conferencing needed to discuss matters of importance to the church. And yet, we do not seem capable of finding another way. That means that we will be forced to decided whether, and to what extent, we should amend the Constitution of the church based off of a flawed system and an impoverished discussion.

As I have reflected on the various amendments, I've come to have deep reservations about many of them. And my reservations are often for reasons that do not seem to show up in the discussions going on elsewhere. So over the past few weeks I've been organizing my thoughts. Below you'll find a link to a commentary on Amendment 1, the amendment that would change the "membership article" in the Book of Discipline:

"Amendment 1 (without the baggage)"

If you care about the coherence of how we understand ourselves as a church, please read this short essay. And feel free to pass it along to others.

I'll also follow this post up with another one in a few days, when I will share a commentary on the "Worldwide Church" amendments that make up 23 of the 32 total amendments.

Heading into the Weekend

I've been swamped this week, but I wanted to post on this beautiful Friday evening to share a couple of things:

First, I've got a recent column in the United Methodist Reporter that looks at the importance of doing work to preserve and extend the Wesleyan tradition of our church. I mentioned this in passing in a post last week, but I wanted to highlight it here. The column reflects on my recent trip to the Wesleyan Theological Society's annual meeting back in March, when I got to interact with fellow United Methodists as well as folks from the Church of the Nazarene, Free Methodist Church, Church of God, and Wesleyan Church. The WTS is made up of people who are committed to the common Wesleyan foundation of all our churches, and they do historical and theological work aimed at preserving and developing the Wesleyan tradition. If you are a student or pastor with an interest in Wesleyan theology or Methodist history, I would recommend joining the WTS and planning on attending its annual spring meeting. It is wonderfully invigorating.

Second, the crush of work this week has kept me from responding to some of the insightful comments to my blog post last week on possibilities for church reform. I devoted a couple of hours this afternoon to just such a response, which you can see by scrolling to the bottom of the comments on that post. I only mention that because my response includes a reflection on the proposed constitutional amendments to the Book of Discipline that will be taken up for consideration by annual conferences this summer. The reflection is written in conversation with Bruce Robbins' book, A World Parish?, which I believe is key to understanding what the amendments are aiming toward. An essay I am working on right now will include my views on the amendments in fuller form, and I plan on making that essay available on this blog when it is finished.

As we prepare to move into Holy Week, I hope everyone is blessed with the same beautiful weather that we are promised here in Durham this weekend.