logo

Amending away our global church? 
by Riley B. Case

A pastor, who would be known as a “Progressive” in today’s language, was speaking of his trip to Africa. It was a good trip, and he was moved by a number of things. Then he made a statement: “In their understanding of human sexuality—as well as other things—the Africans are a couple of generations behind us.”

I did not challenge his comment, but I wonder if he realized what he had just said. In his mind, progressives are advanced in science, education, moral vision, and cultural expression, and the rest of the world needs to catch up to his way of thinking. In other settings, this view is understood as cultural imperialism. 

That kind of thinking is inherent in the newest argument for the acceptance of homosexual practice. Some advocates have long claimed that homosexual orientation is in the genes, or is at least God-given in some way, and therefore to be affirmed. But now there is a new twist.

An argument now being made is that attitudes toward matters of human sexuality are culturally conditioned, and since cultural differences should be recognized and affirmed, it is quite possible that African views of homosexuality (where it is strongly believed to be sinful) may be acceptable for Africa, but they should not be imposed on the more-progressive thinking United States.

In other words, let Africans decide what is right for Africans and Americans decide what is right for Americans. This is relevant because it is the presence of the Africans at the 2008 General Conference that assured that the church’s traditional stand on homosexuality would be maintained. As one African delegate commented, “We saved the church.” However, in the minds of progressives, the Africans did not “save” the church, but rather kept it from advancing. No wonder some African delegates sensed that they—or at least their views—were not welcome at General Conference. Some Africans were told it was best if they did not speak.

Now a way has been proposed that would remove Africans and other Central Conferences from voting on how the practice of homosexuality is handled in the U.S. This would be through major constitutional changes in our Book of Discipline that would separate the Africans and other Central Conference delegates from voting on matters that are considered specific to the U.S. The present Central Conferences would be renamed Regional Conferences and the U.S. would be made its own Regional Conference.

Under the new system, there would continue to be a General Conference, but it would deal with a limited agenda. Exactly what that agenda would be is still unclear (and that is part of the problem). Then, after the shortened General Conference meets, the rest of the world could go home and the U.S. delegates, meeting as a Regional Conference, would decide those matters that are U.S. specific. This would include a majority of the resolutions, many financial matters, ordination standards, and a whole lot more. 

This proposal to restructure and create Regional Conferences came to General Conference upon the recommendation of the bishops and the Connectional Table (the two most powerful groups in the church). With the recommendation came “assurances” that the issue of homosexuality was not the motivating factor for the proposal. Despite these “assurances,” homosexuality will surely be one of the unintended (or for many the intended) consequence of the proposal. The amendments associated with the proposal passed General Conference with almost no debate (almost all of the time set aside for discussion and debate was taken up by the question of how many youth would serve on the Task Force. This was the governing body at its worst; we debate the make-up of the committee but never address the substance). The proposal now needs to be ratified by the annual conferences. Under our Discipline, amendments cannot become church law unless and until at least two-thirds of the aggregate votes of all the Annual Conferences approve them. Thus the importance of the 2009 Annual Conferences.  

In addition to the fact that the passing of the amendments would open the door for the U.S. church to approve homosexual practice, there are other reasons why this proposal is—at least at this time—bad for the church.

1. This proposal did not come from the overseas churches. It was a U.S. initiated proposal based on the fear—if fear is too strong a word, at least the realization—that at the present rate of decline in U.S. membership, and the growth of the overseas churches, particularly the African church, the U.S. will eventually be overwhelmed by the masses. And, as has been pointed out by many, the African church is more biblical and more traditional in its understanding of the faith. Theological liberalism would lose badly unless it can get the Africans out of the way. In reality, this is a form of the old Central Jurisdiction which, when adopted in 1940, was a form of institutional racism.

2. Regional Conferences would be more expensive and add layers of bureaucracy. We do not know what the price tag would be for adding “regional” conferences to our structure, but it is most probable that there would have to be “regional” Disciplines, additional travel expenses, additional staff, and additional meetings. Currently, no reports have been issued of the actual financial calculations. This is like starting a building with no estimate of the cost. Does the church really want to be that reckless financially?

3. While there is presently a task force which is instructed to work out details of what sorts of legislation and matters would be assigned to the General Conference and what sorts of matters would be assigned to the Regional Conferences, there is no way of knowing how the General Conference and the Jurisdictional Conferences will divide up the Discipline. For example, the U.S. seminaries, which are heavily subsidized to the tune of $15 million a year (while the overseas seminaries get almost nothing) will not want the overseas delegates to vote on how seminary money will be spent. There will be tremendous differences of opinion about what is global and what is national (beginning with issues around homosexuality).

4. There is no way that the proposal and amendments that authorize it will get a fair hearing and debate at the annual conferences. The conferences are being asked to consider 32 constitutional amendments in 2009. Twenty-three of those amendments relate to the Regional Conferences. Very few annual conference delegates at this point even know what the proposal is all about. There have not been articles in the church-wide press with serious discussion.

It is most likely that annual conferences will want to vote on all the amendments at one time. Even worse, and in some ways unconscionable, the African conferences—who will be greatly affected if the proposal passes—know very little about what the U.S. church has planned for them. At this writing, the amendments have not even been translated into French or Portuguese, the commonly spoken languages in Africa. Consider the fact that some of the overseas conferences will be meeting in early spring. The Sierra Leone conference, for example, meets in late February. It is almost as if there is a calculated effort not to involve the Africans in these votes.

What then should be done? Annual conference delegates must vote down the 23 amendments having to do with the Regional Conferences—assuming there will be an opportunity for an informed debate and vote. If forming Regional Conferences is a good idea (of course many of the bishops think it is) there is no reason why it cannot be considered at a later time, when the task force working on details will have completed its preliminary study.

There is no denying that United Methodism has serious challenges in its way to being a truly global church. Up until now, we have been an American church with missionary conferences that are dependent on our money and subservient to our way of thinking. If we are politically correct and monitor the speech of delegates to be sure it is properly inclusive, we expect the rest of the world to be politically correct and to be monitored. If we change our minds on whether the practice of homosexuality is to be affirmed, we expect the rest of the world to change their minds. If we believe it our church’s responsibility to instruct the U.S. government on how it should be run, we expect the rest of the world to agree with our instruction.

It is true that the present Central Conferences, and particularly the African Central Conferences, find it difficult to adapt to American United Methodism’s corporate culture. The way we speak, the issues we want to debate, even the whole process by which we conduct business—these are often a mystery to those of a different culture, especially when these people speak a different language and communicate by way of interpreters.

The Regional Conferences idea would address these challenges by segregating everyone into their little groups. We may gain some temporary efficiency, but we would sacrifice our claim of being a global church. 

 

Riley B. Case is a retired member of the North Indiana Conference, assistant executive director of the Confessing Movement, and a member of the Good News Board of Directors. He is also the author of Evangelical and Methodist: A Popular History (Abingdon).



Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.

Good News | 308 East Main St. | P.O. Box 150 | Wilmore, KY 40390 | 859-858-4661 | 1-800-487-7784
info@goodnewsmag.org | About Us | ©2007 Good News magazine