Paul
McCleary points to difference between ‘program’ and governance ‘structures,’
suggests GC ‘executive committee’ between sessions.
By
Paul McCleary*
I have
read with interest and concern the news articles about the proposed restructuring of The United Methodist Church.
My
concern lies in the frequent reference to the “restructuring of the governance
structure” of the church. I only wish that were so.
The
proposal would affect the “program” structure of the denomination and NOT the
“governance” structure.
The
boards and agencies are creatures of the General Conference and not the
reverse. While they do “manage” and “administer,” they oversee programs.
The
governance structure is the conference structure — General, Jurisdictional and
Annual. The conference system is the locus of policy and decision-making. The
general agencies, as creatures of the General Conference, follow the direction set
by the General Conference.
Do not
interpret my comments as opposition to restructuring.
The
denomination needs a more effective decision-making, policy-setting governance
system than what we have now.
General
Conference 2012 is saddled with an agenda of impossible proportions. One feels
deep compassion for the nearly 1,000 delegates from all over the world who will
have to resolve some of the most complex social and ethical problems in less
than two weeks. Once they adjourn, the denomination is left without the “legitimate”
ability to arrive at decisions affecting the Discipline.
What
should have been done some time ago was to create an executive committee of the
General Conference to function between sessions of the General Conference. The
task of the General Conference would be to set the perimeters of the authority
of the executive committee and delegate to the executive committee specific
responsibilities that it could advance between sessions. Those developments
would be affirmed in the first session of the General Conference after the
actions. And, the process would be repeated. Such a governance system would
facilitate informed decision-making and create an administrative oversight
system parallel to the ecclesiastical oversight of congregations provided by
bishops.
An
executive committee should be composed of individuals who represent the
inclusive nature of the church and allow all of the stakeholders a means to
express their concerns and interests. One of the disappointments of the current
proposal is it reverses the long-standing concern of the denomination to allow
concerns to be expressed and limits participation to a small and apparently
unrepresentative body.
It is
not appropriate for the Council of Bishops, or any other body, to assume an
authority they cannot fulfill and for which they cannot be held accountable.
The delegation of authority requires accountability. In our system, this
primarily can be done by elections.
Another
concern is the lack of detail and specificity in the proposal. For the union of
1939 the delegates to the Uniting Conference were presented with a
"Prospectus of the Discipline of The Methodist Church." The report of
the Structure Study Commission was presented as draft copy of the Discipline.
When restructuring took place with the1968 union, delegates to that General
Conference were presented with the proposed changes in the Discipline.
Two
distinct times and very specific legislation. We don’t have it this time.
The
proposal before General Conference 2012 neither provides detail nor does it
offer any consideration of the consequences of the decisions to be made.
While
there can be no doubt on the part of anyone that the United Methodist Church
needs to make serious changes, in our willingness and haste to see such changes
occur we ought not make the wrong ones.
*McCleary
was the staff member for the Structure Study Commission that proposed the
restructuring to the 1972 General Conference. He is a former missionary to
Bolivia, a former executive director of Church World Service and has worked at
Save the Children and Feed the Children.