Worldwide Nature of the Church

Elizabeth Quick

DMin 902 Research Paper

2/15/2011

The Worldwide United Methodist Church: Seeking a Way Forward

The United Methodist Church is a global denomination. While many mainline denominations have presences around the world which are connected in some way, but are independent in polity and practice in each region or country, The United Methodist Church (UMC) has one polity and order; there is no separate entity of the Church in the United States or in any other country.[1] Because of this unique global identity, United Methodists face unique challenges as we try to live together in mission and ministry. Statistics from the denomination’s General Council on Finance and Administration show the demographic shift of the UMC from being a United States-centered church to a more global, particularly more African denomination. In 1968, 92.5% of United Methodists (baptized and professing members) were from the United States. African United Methodists represented 1.5% of the church, and all other regions made up 6% of United Methodists. In 2007, just 64.6% of United Methodists were from the United States, and 32.5% were from Africa.[2]

Like most mainline denominations, The United Methodist Church structure reveals a history of colonialism. Though our denomination is global, our organization reflects a central United States influence and control, while countries outside of the United States remain at the periphery. The United Methodist Church is divided into Jurisdictions in the United States[3], and each Jurisdiction is further divided into Annual Conferences. Outside of the United States, there are no Jurisdictions, but instead Central Conferences, further divided into Annual Conferences. Bishops serving in the United States are responsible for one or two conferences in an Episcopal area, but outside the United States, Bishops are sometimes responsible for seven or eight annual conferences. All denominational agencies are located in the United States. The Book of Discipline gives Central Conferences the authority to adapt the Discipline to deal with issues that pertain to the “conditions in the respective areas.”[4] However, Jurisdictional Conferences in the United States have no such power; the assumption is that The Book of Discipline always applies to the United States, and needs adaptation for churches outside the US.

In recent history, the UMC, through the General Conference, its top legislative body, has attempted to respond to an increasingly global church by proposing possible ways of restructuring to change or eliminate some of these differences between bodies in and outside of the United States. However, to date, delegates have not yet adopted any significant changes to structure. Complicating these significant issues, leading up to and following General Conference 2008, both “liberal” and “conservative” individuals and caucus groups within the denomination have accused each other of advocating for or against such structural change because of “hidden agendas,” particularly around issues of human sexuality. For example, if the UMC in the United States alone could determine polity, conceivably a more liberal region of the global church could adopt policies allowing for ordination of gay and lesbian clergy, for holy unions of same-sex couples by UMC clergy in UMC facilities, and for removing language in the Discipline that defines homosexuality as “incompatible with Christian teaching.” With a growing African church, keeping the structure of the UMC the same might ensure instead that more conservative polity relating to human sexuality stays in place. In a comment on a blog post at Joseph Slife’s MethodistThinker.com, for example, user EHReich wrote, “No one was fooled at the last General conference [sic] to know that the issue of splitting off the USA side of the UMC was an attempt by some to move the US church to embrace homosexuality.”[5] A controversy arose during General Conference 2008 when the conservative Renewal and Reform Coalition distributed cell phones to delegates from Central Conferences for use during the gathering. Many liberal voices expressed concerns that the phones came with “strings attached,” expectations that Central Conference delegates would vote certain ways on contentious issues.[6]

Obviously, actions and accusations of this kind do little for the unity of the denomination, and further, they distract from the issue at hand: What structure for The United Methodist Church would best reflection our mission and meet the needs of our global and changing church? Rev. Tim McClendon, a South Carolina District Superintendent, spoke on the divisive nature of the debate about the proposed amendments and possible future restructuring. "This is an equity issue," he said, and "a lot of this legislation seems to be about who gets to keep those votes from conferences outside the United States." "Who keeps them?" he asked. "I am pushing for the middle to hold us together. I believe in the unity of the church."[7] I hope to suggest some principles/guidelines that might help us move forward as a denomination. First, however, I want to examine where we’ve come from by looking briefly at the history of the movement for structural change, and then examine some of the voices in the current conversation around the nature of the worldwide church.

History

Efforts to create a more equitable global church structure are not new. Over the last one hundred years, since the creation of the central conferences, study groups and commissions of The United Methodist Church and its predecessor bodies have suggested changes to the structure of the Church to put the United States and bodies in other countries on level ground. Yet, time after time, General Conference has failed to act or acted to oppose such changes. The Methodist Episcopal Church created the central conferences and a commission on the central conferences in the 1920s. As early as 1932, the Commission on Central Conferences recommended possible directions for church structure, suggesting that the central conferences could become independent Methodist churches (as Methodist churches in Korea, Brazil, and elsewhere had already done), or the United States could become a central conference, and a more “fully representational” General Conference dealing with global issues be established. However, nothing was done. In 1944, The Methodist Church created the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS.) In 1964 the General Conference ordered COSMOS to study the structure of the church and recommend changes. Also in 1964, five more central conferences requested and were granted autonomy.[8]

In 1968, the year of the merger between the Evangelical United Brethren Church and The Methodist Church into The United Methodist Church, COSMOS offered recommendations to choose from: 1) keep things essentially the same. 2) urge autonomy for central conferences 3) created a world church with regional conference responsible for their own Discipline with General Conference addressing only global issues, or 4) create a World Council of Methodist Churches, consisting of autonomous regional bodies, meeting to consult. No action was taken on these proposals because of the overwhelming demands of the merger process. Effectively, position 1, keeping things the same, is adopted. In 1972, COSMOS advocated for the creation of the Committee of Central Conferences to exist in its stead. In 1992, the General Conference requested the Council of Bishops to study the global nature of the church. In 1996 the Council of Bishops reported back, recommending the creation of four regions – North America, Africa, Asia and the Philippines, and Europe, each with authority over regional issues, with less-frequent gatherings globally to act on worldwide issues. They also highlighted the need to “develop sensitivity to how God seeks to manifest the Gospel in each unique culture and nation,” and to “maintain a vital global connection in order to prevent both narrow parochialism and detrimental regionalism.”[9] The 1996 General Conference appointed a “Connectional Process Team” (CPT) to develop these recommendations. In 2000, the CPT recommended establishing the four regions as the Council of Bishops had, but the proposal was soundly defeated.[10]

Voices in the Conversation

At the 2008 General Conference, a series of constitutional amendments were proposed in petitions that would change the name “central conference” to “regional conference.” The amendments would not change the structure of the bodies, just the name, but were considered a “first step” towards eventual restructuring. The proposed amendments were presented by the Council of Bishops' Task Force on the Global Nature of the Church.[11] After debate, the General Conference recommended adoption of these amendments, but the amendments were not ratified by the Annual Conferences.[12] Leading up to and following General Conference 2008 and annual conference voting on the amendments, various group around the denomination weighed in on the amendments specifically and on the worldwide nature of the church as a whole.

Conservative voices from renewal groups in The United Methodist Church generally opposed the proposed constitutional amendments, saying that the General Conference shouldn’t enact legislation without a clear understanding of the impact of such changes, and without a clear plan for future action. “Why should delegates adopt the Constitutional amendments without knowing precisely what they are paving the way to establish?” asked The Institute on Religion and Democracy, a conservative group which advocates in several of the mainline denominations.

Ironically this proposal has been promoted in the name of ‘what’s good for those non-U.S. United Methodists,’ but its primary effect would be to dramatically limit their influence. Furthermore, the proposal, which has been nicknamed “the global segregation plan,” ignores serious inequities towards non-U.S. United Methodism . . . We believe that the increasingly global nature of our UNITED Methodist Church is a great strength to be celebrated rather than a weakness to be suppressed.[13]

As above, leaders at the IRD repeatedly state that the proposed constitutional amendments and possible restructuring plans had been called “by some” a “global segregation plan.” On their General Conference 2008 website, they ask, “Will the UMC remain a united global church—or will we partially segregate the U.S. church from the growing, faithful United Methodism in Africa and the world?”[14]

The day after delegates voted to retain all current language on human sexuality in the Book of Discipline, the IRD, in their daily UMAction briefing, specifically thanked African delegates for helping to assure this result:

Yesterday, our beloved United Methodist Church voted not to follow the path of the fracturing Episcopal Church or the shriveling United Church of Christ. Unlike those declining denominations that are increasingly captive to our surrounding American culture, United Methodists voted to affirm the teachings of Jesus Christ about marriage and sexual ethics. Thank you, delegates of General Conference 2008! Thank you for standing up to the surrounding pressures and intimidation . . . Special thanks go to our brothers and sisters in Africa. Thank you, Congolese, Nigerians, Sierre Leoneans, Liberians, Angolans, Mozambicans, Zimbabweans, Ivorians and others who journeyed thousands of miles, at a great price, for standing with us. You, our African friends, have stood between us and potential schism in our church.[15]

Eddie Fox, director of the World Evangelism Division of the World Methodist Council also referenced not wanting to change the Constitution until the ultimate direction and vision of restructuring was known. He writes,

When the proposal to change the Constitution came to the Connectional Table, of which I am a member, I stated that the study should be done first and then make changes as needed based upon the clear vision for our church. In the Appalachian Mountains where I grew up, we did not "open the gate" until we knew what would be coming through the gate. Some of the constitutional amendments simply change the name "central" to "regional."[16]

Rob Renfroe, editor of Good News Magazine, the “magazine for United Methodist Renewal,” echoes the need for clear direction in a letter to Bishop Scott Jones, convener of the Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church: “One reason . . . [the proposed constitutional amendments will not be approved], is because sweeping changes were being proposed by people whom the leaders of our groups either did not know well or knew well enough to be sure that their vision for the church is markedly different than ours.” Renfroe continues, expressing mistrust some felt about the amendments and those who proposed them:

Were the amendments a knight on a steed coming to save the day or a Trojan horse that we would later regret that we had brought into the church? When you face that question, how you respond comes down to trust. And, honestly, though I trust you, many leaders in the Renewal groups and I did not know others on the committee enough to trust their judgment or to recommend passage of the very complicated and potentially detrimental amendments they were proposing.

Still, Renfroe agrees that structural change is needed. But he insists that any proposed changes will only be successful with greater involvement from member of renewal groups or from those trusted by renewal groups. “We are committed to the church around the world and to indigenous churches being freed and empowered to do ministry contextually – but we want to be full partners in thinking through and creating those structures. Give us the chance, and you’ll find we can be very helpful on both the take-off and the landing.”[17]

Progressive voices urged for the adoption of the amendments at least, and often recommended deeper, more substantive changes. The Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA) is one of the liberal/progressive caucus groups of The United Methodist Church. Following their April 2009 Board Meeting, the Directors of MFSA published a newsletter outlining their recommended action on all the proposed constitutional amendments that Annual Conference members would be voting on following the 2008 General Conference. In this newsletter, MFSA outlined a number of “striking inequities” in the structure of the United Methodist Church. They pointed out that General Conference sessions, committees, and documents are primarily available in English, despite an increasing number of delegates who are not English-speaking.[18] Budgets adopted at General Conference are voted on by all delegates, but mostly apply only to Annual Conferences in the United States. Membership in most general church agencies is not proportional; some of the formulas for agency representation require only one person from a Central Conference. Yet, Annual Conferences in Central Conferences can adapt and add to some parts of the Book of Discipline, while Annual Conferences in the United States cannot. MFSA says that it seeks changes to the structure of the global church where such changes bring unity, “create equity between regions,” and eliminate preferential “opportunities” for the church in the United States. Ultimately, it recommended adoption of the amendments as a step in the right direction, but still not enough. “MFSA does not believe that the proposed changes in the Constitution strike at the heart of the inequities that exist and the changes that need to be made.”[19]

Kathryn Johnson, Executive Director of MFSA, elaborated on the organization’s positions on the global church:

An inordinate amount of time is spent at General Conference dealing with matters that do not directly affect those in regions outside of the U.S. Those from the United States have no forum in which to discuss issues that relate specifically to their own region of the world when all others countries have such a forum. Why is it, that if group after group of representatives from across the church, year after year, come up with very similar recommendations for making changes to our structure, that time after time, either the General Conference itself, or the members of our Annual Conferences reject those proposals? Perhaps, more importantly, is there something we can do differently so that we get another result? I recently heard someone modify a saying which is familiar to us all. “It’s not true,” she said, “that if you do what you’ve always done you’ll get what you’ve always got.” What she said is “that if you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get less than what you’ve always got.” The world continues to change around us and presenting the same or similar proposals to another General Conference, in the way we have in the past, will certainly get us less

Johnson encourages directly addressing the theological differences that have impacted discussions about the global church. “Leaving these realities [of difference] unnamed does not make them go away. Naming them up front, I believe, allows us to honestly ask ourselves the question of whether we are going to make proposals about a structure that can contain these differences.”[20]

Troy Plummer and Gayle Felton shared perspectives representing the Reconciling Ministries Network, a progressive network particularly advocating for the full inclusion of people of all sexual orientations in the UMC. Like MFSA, they argued that the proposals for restructuring so far did not do enough to ensure a change “in the dominance of the US church.” Further, they argue that “the Social Principles are probably the most culturally-conditioned” section of the Book of Discipline. “To deny this is to be insensitive to varied contexts and disrespectful of particular cultures . . . Too often, this discussion has created a false polarity between the United States Church and our Central Conferences. Or more clearly, America or Africa, seems to be the refrain.”[21]

Representatives of General Boards and Agencies and other groups have also shared feedback with the Study Committee on their hopes for a restructured worldwide church. Karen Greedwaldt, General Secretary of the General Board of Discipleship remarked,

Much of what is offered [in resources] to the Central Conferences from the general agencies, annual conferences, and local churches is US-centric and is often parochial. At times, the offerings of the US-based church are paternalistic. While the vision of offering Christ to the world is laudable and well-intentioned, these efforts have engaged leaders in other parts of the world from the assumptions and positions of privilege that occur when partners in ministry do not meet on equal footing . . . This lack of balance shifts USA partners into positions of power and control and engage others from positions of victim or subservience. While well intentioned, Central Conference leaders (often bishops) are moved into positions of fund raisers as they approach leaders within the USA.[22] Karen Greenwaldt, speech Worldwide Nature of the Church, Remarks to the Committee, GS of GBOD, November 9, 2009

Greenwaldt highlights the enormous costs of the US-based Board of Discipleship trying to resource African Countries. She concludes saying that since “there are regional differences,” the UMC should have regional gatherings. Leaders in each region have to trust each other to “make decisions about the local expressions of mission and ministry.” Finally, “to place the conversation about the need for denominational conversation and decision against the needs for regional conversation and decision into an “either/or” framework diminishes us as a church.”[23]

M. Garlinda Burton, representing the Commission on the Status and Role of Women, writes about the global church and the role of women. “A lot of what we’re deciding in the Western church with regard to engaging global Christians is being informed by men only,” she writes. “Women are also products of their cultures, and they have something to say about what a global church and a church that is attuned to their cultures should look like . . . And we heard many White people from the U.S. church presume to interpret a Central Conference ethos based on their interaction solely with Central Conference men in church leadership.”[24]

The National Federation of Asian American United Methodists also weighed in on the need for changes in order to achieve a truly global church:

If we were to take seriously the nature of a world wide church for our denomination, we must first and foremost be ready to move away from being a US-centric church. We control the resources, especially monetary, and hence can inadvertently create a situation of dependence for central conferences. If we are serious about a world wide church, we should work towards parity of relationship with central conferences, working with them to achieve self-determination, self-propagation, and self-support.[25]

The General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) wrote specifically about patterns emerging because of inequitable funding between annual conference within the United States and Central Conferences.

“Mission partnerships have developed between individual church leaders, individual congregations or individual annual conferences. Those involved in such partnerships often do not see any need to pass through general agencies – or even see them as a hindrance to their own local mission dynamic. Unconsciously, old inappropriate patterns of mission revive: e.g. “we know what is good for others”; “help goes where I know someone” (not where it is most needed); “my own experience of helping in a poor country is so precious” (even if other means would be more efficient) etc. Mistrust towards agencies grows with their distance to the local church. On a world-wide level, general conference is the “guarantee” for the unity of the church . . . Unity in the church is not and has never been dependent on the presence or absence of general agencies on a world-wide level.[26]

These various voices show the nature and scope of dialogue happening throughout the connection about the global church. Of course, individual voices are unique, but the above passages represent general reflections from representative points of view.

Eventually, as already noted, though the constitutional amendments changing “central” conferences into “regional” conferences were supported by General Conference delegates, they were not supported by a two-thirds majority in the annual conferences.[27] However, General Conference did vote to create a study group on the “Worldwide Nature of the Church.”[28] The mandate for the study group is very specific in suggestions for possible changes to structure to be considered, outlining a format where the General Conference could meet for one week (instead of the current two) with a United States regional body meeting immediately following to deal with country-specific issues. The resolution also suggests a division of powers that would remain with the General Conference and that would revert to regional bodies, mostly keeping with designations that are already disciplinary. Of course, no General Conference can bind a future session of General Conference to any actions – each General Conference begins anew. Thus, General Conference 2012 will not be required to accept the eventual report of this Worldwide Nature of the Church study group or to enact the measures it will recommend, but I am hopeful that as more and more people are involved in considering topics related to equality and the Worldwide Church, we will be ready as a General Conference to embrace changes that offer a just structure for all.

Future Direction?

What is the way forward? How can change happen? In the midst of so much conflict, what hope is there for unity and forward movement in the United Methodist Church? I suggest that to make progress toward becoming a truly global church, we will need to focus sharply on the issues at stake, work to build our trust and be honest about our own points of view, be willing to compromise, and finally, collaborate together across divisions to come up with new solutions. These principles would help to overcome, or at least work through the issues identified by the parties above that so far have been stumbling blocks to structural change for a stronger global church. By sharpening our focus, I mean that we need to agree that our goal is restructuring the organization of The United Methodist Church in order to promote equity and fairness for all regions. We need to agree to let fall to the wayside other issues – at least as far as structural proposals are concerned. Proposed legislation must be specific in scope and clear in boundaries and limitations.

Second, we must develop an atmosphere of trust and honesty in the denominations, and particularly related to General Conference sessions. As a former delegate to General Conference, I can say that the tense atmosphere at the gathering is palpable. We must find ways to build trust, so that we aren’t always looking for hidden agendas and secret meanings. Trust comes through relationship. I propose that we need to find ways to build relationships with one another with intentionality across the political church divide. We must also strive for honesty. We all carry biases with us in our work. We have to own up to them. For example, I must share that I hope one day the UMC will be fully open to people of all sexual orientations, and I carry that hope with me into all my denominational work. I must be clear about that, and not pretend that my vision doesn’t influence my thoughts on other issues.

Compromise is essential. In seminary, I took a class called “Strategies of Social Protest,” which looked at the Civil Rights Movement in the United States in the 1960s. I wrote my final paper on the art of compromise in the movement, how Martin Luther King’s willingness to compromise on aspects of his goals enabled greater progress than if he insisted on entirely getting his way. I suspect the same holds true in debates about church structure. It is unlikely that any party will be entirely satisfied with the organization of the denomination. All parties should be willing to find areas of compromise to achieve results.

Finally, different groups and interests must be willing to work together, to collaborate on ideas and proposals across the divides. What would happen if representatives from the progressive and conservative caucus groups sat together with members of Central Conferences and tried to create a proposal for a new church structure? I was a delegate to General Conference in 2000 as a lay person, and then again as a clergy delegate in 2008. I worked on the legislative committee called “Church and Society I,” which dealt with petitions primarily relating to the Social Principles of The United Methodist Church and The Book of Resolutions, our expanded guide to positions on social issues. Our legislative area included consideration of petitions relating to immigration policy, certainly a contentious issue in the United States, with “liberal” and “conservative” understandings of the issue. During the course of our debate, it became clear that one petition would likely be adopted that was favored by more progressive delegates, and that some conservative delegates felt hurt, unheard, and very upset that such a petition would be adopted. At some point during the conversation, a group of both conservative and liberal delegates agreed that they would take the petition, work on revising it in a small group, and represent it to the committee the next day. The small group spent hours outside of our session considering the document, and the following day presented a version that seemed to meet the needs of both progressive and conservative voices, while addressing the core questions of justice and immigration. Our committee burst into applause in appreciation for their hard work and their amazing results. In my personal experience, such collaboration is unfortunately rare. Most divisive issues faced by delegates leave participants with the distinct sense that there are winners and losers. Seeing this conversation, compromise, and collaboration in process allowed me (and others, I suspect) to wonder if there is not another way to do things than the winner-takes-all style that has characterized debates at General Conference.

Looking back over the timeline of proposals to change the structure of the denomination to reflect our increasingly global reality, I think it could be easy to be discouraged by the lack of forward movement over some eighty years. But I remain hopeful that the Holy Spirit is at work, always seeking to open our hearts to God and to one another. I look forward to General Conference 2012, and I pray for a church that recognizes and reflects all the blessings of our worldwide faith.

Appendix A - Worldwide Nature of the Church – General Conference Mandate

http://www.worldwideumc.org/general-conference-direction - adopted by 2008 General Conference

Resolved: That the Council of Bishops and Connectional Table jointly appoint a study committee of twenty (20) persons representative of all geographical regions of the church. This committee shall include persons from the prior committee. This committee shall report back to the 2012 General Conference with legislation possibly altering the Book of Discipline so that the United States would be one Regional Conference out of many within the worldwide United Methodist Church. The study will include consultation with the Affiliated Autonomous, Affiliated United Churches, and the General Council on Finance and Administration. Cost for this study will be borne by the Episcopal Fund and the General Administration Fund. The study will consider the following principles:

A. Basic Guidelines
1. “The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ;” Matthew 28:19 further clarifies that this mission is to “all nations.” The United Methodist Church must find a way to better organize itself for this global mission.
2. The unity of the United Methodist Church is a gift given by God; any proposed restructuring changes of the United Methodist Church must ensure that the church is united by our mission, our doctrine, and our discipline.
3. In order for the Church to be effective in diverse locales, some freedom to vary within the Church must be given to Regional Conferences as long as it is not contrary to the mission, doctrine, or basic discipline of the United Methodist Church. For example, some Regional Conferences must be given the right to ordain persons without the educational criteria required in the United States.
4. The United States portion of the United Methodist Church needs the “central conferences” as much as the “central conferences” need the United States. The United Methodist Church must continually be conscious of matters of equity in the church.
5. Since representation is a key issue across the church, the Study Committee will give that increased attention.
6. Because of our respect for other churches of the Wesleyan tradition, special attention will be given to the impact of proposed changes in our relationship with member churches of the World Methodist Church.

B. Scheduling Guidelines
1. The General Conference would meet for one week with the same number of delegates as currently elected apportioned in the same way as now done.
2. Following the meeting of the General Conference, the US delegates to General Conference would meet as the US Regional Conference to conduct its business.
3. General Conference will always meet prior to any and all Regional Conferences.
4. While this arrangement could continue indefinitely, each body could decide to meet at a separate time and place. However, for reasons of cost and the long-range plans already made for General Conferences in the near future, it is envisioned that back-to-back meetings will be held in the United States for the first two quadrennia after passage.

C. Powers of the General Conference
Essentially, the power of the General Conference will remain the same. As stated in ¶ 16, the General Conference will be in charge of “all matters distinctly connectional.” In those places where the discipline is overly complex and not easily divided, this petition submits guidelines to direct the work of the study. Specifically, it will have authority over the following:
1. Resolutions on global issues
2. Constitution ¶ 1-99
3. Doctrinal Standards, Doctrinal History, Doctrinal Heritage and Our Theological Task ¶ 101-104
4. Mission Statements and Global Mission Initiatives ¶ 120 - 141
5. Social Principles ¶160 – 166 that relate to a global or universal ethic.
6. The Local Church and Church Membership
a. All definitions and basic functions of the local church
b. The requirements, definition, and meaning of membership
7. Ministry of the Ordained
a. Nature and function of the orders of Deacon and Elder - including the basic qualifications as found in ¶ 304
b. Historic examination for Elders and Deacons
c. The system of itinerancy
d. General provisions detailing clergy membership at the annual conference level and gender inclusively within the clergy
8. The Superintendency
a. All details concerning the Episcopacy because Bishops remain Bishops of the whole church.
b. Nature and Function of District Superintendents
9. The Conferences ¶ 501 - 591
10. The Annual Conference ¶ 601 - 609
11. Administrative Order ¶ 701 - 2406 except for ¶815 - 816
12. Church Property ¶ 2501 - 2505
13. Judicial Administration ¶ 2601 - 2719
14. Relationships with other denominations, world communions and interreligious groups
15. Financial Matters regarding the following funds: World Service, Episcopal, Interdenominational Cooperation, and General Administration, and Africa University.

D. Duties and Powers of Regional Conferences -
The duties shall remain as stated in ¶ 31 for Central Conferences:
1. To promote the mission of the church within their own boundaries. See ¶ 31.1
2. Elect bishops in the regional conferences where there are no jurisdictional conferences - see ¶ 31.2
3. Establish required boards and officers - see ¶ 31.3
4. Determine boundaries of annual conferences within its borders - see ¶ 31.4
5. Appoint a judicial court for questions about the rules and actions of the regional conference - see ¶ 31.6
6. Appoint a committee to determine the appeal of a clergy member from the decision of a committee on trial - see ¶ 31.7
7. Make Rules and Regulations for work within its boundaries as allowed by the General Discipline

Specifically, it will have authority over the following:
1. Resolutions on regional issues
2. The Local Church and Church Membership
a. Details concerning admission into the church
b. The method of keeping the rolls of each church
c. Organization and administration of each local church
3. The Ministry of the Ordained
a. Candidacy process for both licensed and ordained ministry
b. Requirements for Ordination - see ¶¶ 330-331 and 335
c. Evaluation and details of conference membership
4.The Superintendency
a. Organization of District Superintendents
b. Selection, assignment, and term of District Superintendents
5. Councils and Agencies of the Annual Conference ¶ 610 - 655
6. The District Conference ¶ 656 - 669
7. Church Property ¶ 2506 - 2552
8. Regional funds for work within its borders -Black College Fund ¶ 815

E. Powers and duties of Jurisdictional Conferences - remain the same, see ¶ 27

F. General Agencies
All General Agencies remain as agencies for the whole church.

G. Powers of Annual Conferences, District Conferences and Charge Conferences remain the same.
These proposals are guidelines for the study committee, its work, and its report back to General Conference in 2012.
Furthermore, this committee shall study, answer, and (if necessary) provide legislation to these questions:
1. How can apportionments begin to live into this worldwide nature of the church?
2. Conduct a full review of the Discipline, identify all areas of the Book of Discipline requiring changes to implement this report.

H. Financial implications of any proposed structural amendments.

Works Cited

The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church. Nashville: The United Methodist Publishing House, 2008.

Brewer, Scott. “Statistics in the Global Church.” Powerpoint Presentation.

http://www.worldwideumc.org/sites/default/files/UMC%20-%20Worldwide%20Statistical%20Overview.pdf

Briggs, David. “Council of Bishops Announces Constitutional Amendments Voting Results.” United Methodist News Service, May 5 2010.

https://www.epaumc.org/news/stories/constitutional-amendments

Burton, M. Garlinda. “The Transformational Need for Women in a Christ-focused global United Methodist Church.” Presented to the Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church, Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, November 9, 2009.

http://www.worldwideumc.org/bibliography

Felton, Gayle, and Troy Plummer. Remarks to the Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church, Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, November 9, 2009.

http://www.worldwideumc.org/sites/default/files/Reconciling%20Ministries.txt

Fox, Eddie. Eddie Fox, “The Worldwide Methodist Movement.” Interpreter Magazine.

http://www.interpretermagazine.org/interior.asp?ptid=43&mid=13383

General Board of Global Ministries. “Working Paper for Further Consideration.” Presentation to the Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church, Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, November 9, 2009. http://www.worldwideumc.org/bibliography

“General Conference 2008.” The Institute on Religion and Democracy, http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=626.

“Global Nature of the Church.” Paper presented at the Pre-Conference Briefing for General Conference 2008, Dallas, Texas, September 8-9, 2006. http://www.worldwideumc.org/reports-from-previous-studies

Green, Linda, “Doubts arise following gifts of cell phones,” United Methodist New Service, April 25 2008.

http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=3082929&ct=5291461

---------. “United Methodists explore church's global structure,” United Methodist News Service, February 6 2008.

http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2639513&ct=5012119

Greenwaldt, Karen, “Remarks to the Committee.” Presented to the Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church, Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, November 9, 2009.

http://www.worldwideumc.org/bibliography

Johnson, Kathryn. Remarks to the Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church, Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, November 9, 2009.

http://mfsaweb.org/wp-content/uploads/MFSA%20Presentation%20to%20Study%20Committee_11_%2009%20.pdf

National Federation of Asian American United Methodists. “World Wide Church - Topics for Consideration.” Presented to the Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church, Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, November 9, 2009.

http://www.worldwideumc.org/bibliography

“Recommended Action on Constitutional Amendments.” MFSA Plumbline. April 2 2009. http://mfsaweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Constitutional%20amendments%20(Revised).pdf

Renfroe, Rob. Letter to Bishop Scott Jones. November 3 2009.

“Should We Establish Greater Division in Our Church?” UMAction (The Institute on Religion and Democracy). April 24, 2008. http://www.theird.org//Document.Doc?id=42

Slife, Joseph. “Bishop Scott Jones: Rethinking the path to a worldwide UMC.” Methodistthinker.com. June 23 2010. http://methodistthinker.com/2010/06/23/bishop-scott-jones-rethinking-the-path-to-a-worldwide-umc/

Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of The United Methodist Church. Untitled Timeline Document. http://www.worldwideumc.org/sites/default/files/Worldwide%20UMC%20Study%20Committee%20-%20History%20--%20English%20-1.pdf

“Thank You!” UMAction (The Institute on Religion and Democracy). May 1 2008. http://www.theird.org//Document.Doc?id=51

[1] The United Methodist Church includes churches in North America, Europe, the Philippines, and Africa, and has some formal relationships with Methodist bodies in Asia and South America. The United Methodist Church also participates in the World Methodist Council, which brings together Methodists of many traditions and countries, however the World Methodist Council has no authority to shape polity and order of the member bodies.

[2] Scott Brewer, “Statistics in the Global Church.” Powerpoint Presentation.

http://www.worldwideumc.org/sites/default/files/UMC%20-%20Worldwide%20Statistical%20Overview.pdf The drastic change can partly be attributed to the Methodist church in Cote D’Ivoire becoming part of The United Methodist Church in 2004.

[3] There are five regional jurisdictions – Northeast, Southeast, North Central, South Central, and Western.

[4] The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church (Nashville: The United Methodist Publishing House, 2008) Paragraph 31, Article IV of the Constitution, section 5.

[5] EHReich, on “Bishop Scott Jones: Rethinking the path to a worldwide UMC,” MethodistThinker.com, June 23 2010. http://methodistthinker.com/2010/06/23/bishop-scott-jones-rethinking-the-path-to-a-worldwide-umc/#comment-13321

[6] Linda Green, “Doubts arise following gifts of cell phones,” United Methodist New Service, April 25 2008. http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=3082929&ct=5291461 See related blog post and conversation at “General Conference – April 26” on Matt Kelley’s blog, The Truth As Best I Know It, http://matthewlkelley.blogspot.com/2008/04/general-conference-april-26.html

[7] As quoted by Linda Green, “United Methodists explore church's global structure,” United Methodist News Service, February 6 2008.

http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2639513&ct=5012119

[9] “Global Nature of the Church,” (paper presented at the Pre-Conference Briefing for General Conference 2008, Dallas, Texas, September 8-9, 2006). http://www.worldwideumc.org/reports-from-previous-studies

[10] Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of The United Methodist Church. Untitled Timeline Document.

[12] David Briggs, “Council of Bishops Announces Constitutional Amendments Voting Results,” United Methodist News Service, May 5 2010. https://www.epaumc.org/news/stories/constitutional-amendments

[13] “Should We Establish Greater Division in Our Church?” UMAction (The Institute on Religion and Democracy), April 24, 2008. http://www.theird.org//Document.Doc?id=42

[14] “General Conference 2008,” The Institute on Religion and Democracy, http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=626.

[15] “Thank You!” UMAction (The Institute on Religion and Democracy). May 1 2008. http://www.theird.org//Document.Doc?id=51

[16] Eddie Fox, “The Worldwide Methodist Movement.” Interpreter Magazine (online.)

http://www.interpretermagazine.org/interior.asp?ptid=43&mid=13383

[17] Rob Renfroe. Letter to Bishop Scott Jones. November 3 2009.

[18] At General Conference 2004 and 2008 in fact, an insufficient number of available translators severely inhibited the work of legislative committees. Some legislative committees refused to continue deliberating on petitions until more translators were provided. Delegates requiring the services of a translator sometimes are not able to choose which sub-committee they would like to be part of, as English-speaking are, because they must go where translators are available.

[19] “Recommended Action on Constitutional Amendments,” MFSA Plumbline, April 2 2009. http://mfsaweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Constitutional%20amendments%20(Revised).pdf

[20] Kathryn Johnson, remarks to the Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church, Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, November 9, 2009.

http://mfsaweb.org/wp-content/uploads/MFSA%20Presentation%20to%20Study%20Committee_11_%2009%20.pdf

[21] Gayle Felton and Troy Plummer, (remarks to the Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church, Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, November 9, 2009).

http://www.worldwideumc.org/sites/default/files/Reconciling%20Ministries.txt

[22] Greenwaldt, Karen, “Remarks to the Committee,” (presented to the Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church, Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, November 9, 2009).

http://www.worldwideumc.org/bibliography

[24] M. Garlinda Burton, “The Transformational Need for Women in a Christ-focused global United Methodist Church.” (presented to the Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church, Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, November 9, 2009). http://www.worldwideumc.org/bibliography

[25] National Federation of Asian American United Methodists. “World Wide Church - Topics for Consideration,” (presented to the Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church, Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, November 9, 2009). http://www.worldwideumc.org/bibliography

[26] General Board of Global Ministries, “Working Paper for Further Consideration” (presentation to the Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church, Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, November 9, 2009). http://www.worldwideumc.org/bibliography

[27] To change the constitution, two-thirds of voting members need to approve the change, not two-thirds of annual conferences. Some frustration arose because some annual conferences chose to publish results of the voting in their region before all votes had taken place. The earliest conferences that meet are those in the United States. Some central conference sessions are much later in the annual conference “season.” Thus, by the time some central conference members were able to vote on the amendments, it was already becoming clear that they would not have the votes for passage.