JCD 1147

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1267&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181

Those interested in restructuring their conferences will find this decision loaded with argument for and against its various aspects. Whoever wrote this for the Council is very capable of excellent analysis in a complicated circumstance.

Restructuring annual conferences has been very popular for a number of years now. Where I live, for example, there are no district superintendency committees. There is what amounts to a single administrative council that does nearly everything at the district level. I’m told it works for them. It doesn’t for the very reasons stated in the decision. The alternate structures must provide for a clear connection with the required agencies established by the Discipline. Let me add another point. Maintaining the separate agencies required by the Discipline maintains separation of powers so that conflict of interest and influence of command are minimized.

When I taught UMC polity in church membership classes, I showed connectionalism to be parallel structures at every level of the church which interacted to develop ideas, share information, and solve problems. In recent years, unfortunately, “Connectionalism” is defined as “obeying the bishop no matter what she/he orders.”

But this decision based on questions that come from the Dakotas puts the correct emphasis on what is truly connectional in our system of church administration.