A Proposal For The Connectional Process Team

by Dale | Sep 17, 2020 | United Methodist Church Activity

I. The Task of the Connectional Process Team

A. The Assignment

We have been assigned the task of leading the United Methodist Church in a transformational direction.  The direction in which we are to lead is not completely undefined.  The general conference legislation that called us into being focused on three separate points for the direction in which we are to lead.  First and most importantly we are to find ways to “enable The United Methodist Church more faithfully to carry out its mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ.”  Secondly, we are to find ways to “support local congregations as the primary locus of mission and ministry within the United Methodist Church.”  These two assignments are particularly important because the General Conference added these directions to the proposal originally submitted by the Connectional Issues Task Force.  The General Conference directed the line of transformation to the support of local congregations as the primary focus of our work.

Although the general conference legislation that called us into being directed us to the support of local congregations–whether we are talking about our own local congregations or congregations to be supported as missions–the General Conference also directed our work along other significant paths.  The second important  focus of our work concerns the global nature of the church’ s work.  Clearly, in this regard, the emphasis should be on the church’ s work, rather than on a view of the nature of the United Methodist denomination itself.  Some bishops of our church have expressed the view that to assert that we are a global church may be engaging in triumphalism.  They suggest that we should instead focus on the global mission of the United Methodist Church.

The third direction given to us by the General Conference concerns a review of the manner in which the church operates.  This third direction can be divided into two parts.  First, we are to review the processes by which the church makes decisions.  The legislation encourages the interactive process.  Secondly, we are to review the organizational forms or structures through which the church operates.

The legislation which created our assignment specifically directed that we conduct hearings, and that we invite the affiliate and autonomous churches into dialogue regarding the global nature of the church and the interactive organizational process.  It also directed that we do our work in consultation with the Council of Bishops.  Our initial report is due no later than January, 1999.   We are now past the halfway point in the time allotted to us for completing our initial report.  At our January 1998 meeting, we expect to discuss specific proposals for the writing of our initial report.

I am offering this written proposal that embodies specific suggestions for the following reasons: 

1) Our meetings– in which few of us have the opportunity to speak for more than a very brief period of time–does not and cannot offer the possibility of engaging in and expressing comprehensive, coherent, critical thinking.  Written proposal, circulated to the entire membership of the committee, is the only way to offer a comprehensive plan for consideration and discussion. 

2) It is important that each of us envision a comprehensive model of what we believe an efficiently organized United Methodist Church might look like.  Obviously, we must start with the available organizational resources, and show how those resources can be transformed into the desired structure.. 

3) This proposal is offered, not as the final solution, but as a basis for discussion both within and without the Connectional Process Team.

4) God has called each member of the Connectional Process Team to this work for a particular purpose.  I offer these suggestions in that spirit. 

B. Structure May Not Be The Fundamental Problem

We must recognize at the outset that structure may not be the cause of the problems that the denomination has experienced over the last 30 years.  Perhaps problem is not even the right word.  While the denomination has experienced substantial membership losses in the United States, it has grown in other parts of the world.   Therefore we must carefully identify the exact nature of the problems that we are attempting to solve, and make certain that our solutions apply with equal force in all geographical areas.  The solutions must be context and culturally sensitive.

Within the United States there is widespread belief that the church is top heavy.  There is concern that the general boards and agencies may be too expensive, and that they may not be focused on the mission and ministry of local congregations.  These concerns are viewed by members of the central conferences as U. S.  problems.  The members of central conferences tend to see many of the general boards and agencies as far removed and largely irrelevant to their problems as growing congregations.  The problem, if any, that we have with structure must be given specific context.  Differing structures may be appropriate in differing contexts.

Even more importantly, we must understand that the life of an organization does not happen because of the organizational structure.  Altering the organizational structure will not necessarily breathe life into the organization.  The life of an organization depends on its mission and purpose, and on the motivation and actions of its constituency.  Perhaps the word transformation connotes a change or alteration of form or structure.  However, we have all come to understand that structure follows mission.  Another expression of the same thought is to say that need calls structure into being.  Even though the needs that called our current structure into being may not be the present needs of the church, merely changing the current structure is not our greatest current need.  Mere motivation to change structure is not likely to produce the needed structure.  Likewise, we must not be process driven.  Only an accurate assessment of what the church needs to be doing in the world today can give rise to the needed structure.  The structural changes that we suggest should be guided by a careful assessment of what the church needs to be doing.

 C.  Assessing the Needs of the Church

 The greatest need of the church today is vibrant and vital local congregations representing the body of Christ in the world.  The need for vibrant and vital congregations exists both in the United States and in all of the world.  The church needs to be Christ centered.  It needs to be grounded in the God that is the foundation of all being.  It needs to be directed to mission in the world through the discernment of the will of God.  It needs to be guided in its mission by the Holy Spirit. It must recognize the communal nature of the Body of Christ.  It must offer an alternative community for a world that is broken and hurting and bleeding.  The Church must be faith centered.  But most important of all considerations is that the church membership must act out that faith in the world.

The  faith community that is the church must be an alternative to the world of materialism, crime, drugs, domestic violence and brokenness.  Although we are saved through faith by the Grace of God, our faith is evidenced by the work that we do in the world.  We must offer the alternative community of faith in the ghettoes and high-rises, in the housing projects and suburbs, in and through the business community and the ranks of welfare, and in the United States and throughout the world.  The church must become a meaningful alternative to drugs, alcohol, sinful relations, destructive relations, greed, selfishness, and everything that separates the world from the love of God. It must establish and maintain meaningful relationships.

The church that is described in the preceding paragraph will call into being an organization and structure adequate to its needs.  The church and its members are called to engage the world as it really is.  The world and its problems are complex.  The church–the community of faith–must engage the hearts, souls, minds, and strengths of its entire membership and direct the membership to a renewal of its faith, and to the challenge of the world. The threats to ecology such as global warming, destruction of the rainforests, hazardous waste disposal, international drug traffic, international crime, and international economic issues must occupy our thoughts along with the sins, problems, and pains of the past.  The Church must deal with the advancing advantages and threats of technology in the field of data management and communication.  Discipleship in the 21st century may be the same thing that it has been through the first two millennia, but it will require different actions.  Therefore the structures that support mission and ministry will be markedly different from the structures of the past.  The lines of communication will be different.  The technology will be different.  The language will be different.  The training requirements will be different.  The skills will be different.  Praise God for the magnificence of the ongoing power of creation!

II. The Problem of Corporate Dynamics

Before turning to a discussion of specific recommendations for changes in the organizational structure of the United Methodist Church, we should first come to grips with the dynamics of our corporate existence.  As mentioned earlier, the dynamics differ greatly between the church in the United States and the church in the remainder of the world.

 A.  The Dynamics of the Church in the United States.

 The United Methodist Church in the United States suffers from dynamics associated with economic maturity.  This problem is not limited to church organizations–it applies to almost any form of corporate activity.  Let me offer an illustration.  A group of farmers might become concerned about the possibility of casualty losses or liability for damages arising from  lawsuits.  Their concerns might inspire them to form an insurance company.  Then if one of the farmers suffers a casualty loss, the loss is shared by the entire group and thereby minimized.  The objective is a sound and worthy economic goal that would prevent disastrous loss for any of the farmers.  However, an insurance company must have a staff.  Over a period of time, the organization takes on a life of its own.  The motivations of staff persons become involved.  The insurance company probably becomes involved in politics so as to impact on legislation that would affect the company.  The objectives are no longer the simple goal–sharing and minimizing losses–that called the organization into being.  Eventually, the company, as a separate entity, might even feel compelled to protect itself against the claims of the farmers who brought it into being.  In the business world, the phenomena associated with separation of ownership and management have been recognized at least since Berle and Means published their epoch making treatise in 1931.  There are checks on the power of management.  If the corporation is not managed well, there will be a corporate takeover, and new management.  However, the solutions that work in the world of business economics–such as corporate takeovers–and managerial concern about corporate takeovers– have little or no impact on eleemosynary organizations.  Unfortunately, the only device for dealing with ineffective church management is cumbersome church politics.  Moreover, there is no legitimated measure of success.  Management ideas that are totally inconsistent with each other can thrive year after year, each contending that it is the legitimate test of success for the church.

The problems of economic maturity, no doubt, affect the structure of the United Methodist Church in the United States.  The boards and agencies, with the possible exception of the General Board of Global Ministries, are largely United States church phenomena.  Any attempt to further globalize their influence is likely to be necessarily and correctly viewed in the rest of the world as a carry-over of colonialism.  The vibrant and growing churches outside the United States need to develop structures that serve their specific needs.  The church needs to grant them that power.

B.  The Dynamics of the Church Outside the United States

As has just been mentioned, we must be extremely careful about the attempt to inject the organizational structure of the church in the United States into the church outside the United States.  We must carefully consider the possibility that the very reason for the success of the church outside the United States is precisely because the boards and agencies are not there, and they are still dedicated to their original purposes. 

In many instances, the church outside the United States represents struggling new growth.  It does not represent the mature economic organization problems that exist within the United States.  The energy of the church outside the United States is still fueled by the motivation to the initial purpose.  Those motives have not been affected by the conflicting motivations of the mature organization within the United States.  The church outside the United States is in the growth stage that was experienced in the United States during the first 100 to 150 years of the church’s existence in this country. 

The churches outside the United States, therefore, need autonomy to develop as the body of Christ.  The organization of the church in those areas needs to answer the specific needs of those areas.  It needs to be responsive to the pluralistic needs peculiar to the area.  In the words of St. Paul, it needs to “be all things to all people that it might by all means save some.” (Paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 9:22)  But at the same time the church outside the United States needs to learn from the United States experience, and not repeat any mistakes that may have been made in the United States.

C.  Unity of the Church Throughout the World

We must not leave the discussion of the problem of corporate dynamics with the image that the church within the United States and the church outside the United States has little in common.  The church is, indeed, global, but with different needs in different locations.  Those differing needs may call for differing organizational structures.  But the church everywhere shares a common mission, and that mission is to go into all the world and make disciples.  We can support each other in the effort to make disciples.  The need for unity calls for a unifying structure that recognizes the pluralistic nature of the denomination. 

III.  Transforming the United Methodist Church

Based on the foregoing discussion, it is quite clear that the transformation of the church will not be effective if we propose a Procrustean organizational structure and insist that it replicate itself at every location in the world.  Needs will differ.  Sound organization in Europe may not be sound organization in Africa.  But the most fundamental difference in the need for organizational structure exists between the church in the United States and the church in the remainder of the world.  Most of the problems that the Connectional Process Team has discussed are problems peculiar to the mature economic organization that exists within the United States.  There need to be changes within the United States, but those changes do not need to have an adverse effect on the church in the remainder of the world.  The fundamental problem, then, seems to be how to transform the church within the U.S. without undermining the support that the U.S. church gives to and receives from the.   remainder of the world.

A. Transforming the Church Outside the United States

With faith in the creative power of God, the sustaining power of the Holy Spirit, and the saving power of Jesus Christ, we must empower the church outside the United States to create the structure that it needs.  We must, in matters cultural and geographical, allow a full measure of autonomy, without forsaking the unity of the whole structure.  We must move the locus of decision-making power closer to the local congregation both outside the United States and within the United States.

It would violate the central thought of the proposal made in this paper if the Connectional Process Team were to attempt to suggest the design–the organizational structure–for the church of the future which is to evolve outside the United States.  The Team’s recommendation should call for suggestions from within the central conferences.  The ultimate result should be the delegation to those conferences of the autonomous power to call the needed structures into existence.  The influence of the United States church should be by invitation only.

Before leaving a discussion of the church outside the United States, I should mention that this proposal for granting more autonomy and moving the locus of decision making closer to local congregations is central to the approach that I am suggesting concerning the global mission of the church.  The way to be global is to plan effectively for the work of the church throughout the world.  There is a difference between planning the work and planning for the work.  We must let the actual planning take place nearer the local congregations.  What we must provide is the unifying, empowering connection. 

B.  Transforming the Church Within the United States

The transformation of the church within the United States presents entirely different issues from those confronting the church outside the United States.  Within the United States, we must deal with the problem of the mature economic organization.  The complaints about the church within the United States include the following: (1) the church lacks focus; (2) the church lacks clear objectives;  (3) the church lacks efficient decision-making processes; (4) the technology of communication is out-dated; and (5) existing organizational structure is inefficient.  It might be possible to generalize the root cause of these problems as a pervasive lack of trust.  The reason that we do not create efficient organizations that can handily make decisions is that we do not trust each other to make those decisions.  The people in the pews do not trust the hierarchy because they are not certain that resources are being wisely managed.  The hierarchy does not trust the people in the pews for reasons that are more complex.  First, the people in the hierarchy probably think that they know best.  Secondly, their careers are at stake when we discuss structural changes, and they feel a bit insecure.  Personal power and selfish interests enter into these matters.  We are dealing with the problems of a mature economic organization that has no effective checks a balances with regard to management.  All this is true, despite of the fact that most of the people in the hierarchy are dedicated servants of the church.

Unlike the task of transforming the church outside the United States, the Connectional Process Team needs to recommend very specific changes in structure and policy within the United States.  The following are suggestions of the structural changes that need to be made.  A more detailed explanation of each proposed change will follow the list of proposed changes.

1) Merge the fourteen existing boards and agencies into not more than five agencies;

2) Completely reorganize and redefine the superintendency of the church- particularly the role of the district superintendent;

3) Carefully define the role that council directors (or their equivalents) and resident bishops should occupy vis-a-vis the general boards and agencies;

4) Intentionally appropriate the advantages of modern technology into the service of the connection;

5) Develop a skills-and-values approach to ministerial education;

6) Intentionally focus on the educational needs of laity, clergy, and lay pastors;

7) Affirm the local congregation as the focal point of ministry;

8) Affirm the annual conference and the work of districts as the primary links of the connection;

9) Define and evaluate the work of all conferences, boards, and agencies in terms of their support for local congregations;

10) Make the church structure beyond the local church truly representative           of the population in the pews, and the beliefs and values that they hold.

11) Create a process of dialogue in which the foregoing suggestions can evolve without threatening the careers of those who have dedicated their lives to the denomination.

12) Create a decision making process that is inclusive and effective, and    that is built on participatory interest.

This list of proposed changes is provided in order to summarize the suggestions.  Obviously, each needs a more detailed explanation, which I will now provide. 

1) Merge the fourteen existing boards and agencies into not more than five agencies.

Merger of existing boards and agencies over a period of time will result in a simpler organizational structure.  Merger will inherently increase accountability internally.  Merger will enable the church to respond in whatever way necessary to the continuing decline in membership of the organization.  If membership continues to decline, financial resources will ultimately decline.  Merger would prepare the organizational structure to serve the needs of the church, whether the church is growing or continuing to contract.  Merger of the existing, sprawling bureaucracy would create the possibility of focus for the denomination itself.  The persons in positions of leadership in five boards and agencies could communicate among themselves and manage the business of the agencies far more efficiently than the existing fourteen boards and agencies.  Interactive decision making processes can evolve from the simpler configuration.

While merger is highly desirable for the foregoing reasons, it will be inappropriate for the Connectional Process Team to mandate the specifics for the mergers.  It will be better for General Conference to direct the agencies themselves to engage in dialogue and to present plans of merger to the General Conference that convenes in the year 2004.  However, it is quite feasible to group the boards and agencies by the nature of their work, and the General Conference of 2000 should give make recommendations as which boards and agencies should merge with each other.

(1) Discipleship, Publications, Archives, and United Methodist Communications should be combined into one agency.  All deal with the written and spoken word.  Perhaps nurture would be the appropriate name for the resulting agency. 

(2) Church and Society, Religion and Race, Status and Role of Women, and the Commission on Christian Unity should be combined into an advocacy agency.  The functional tasks assigned to each of these groups are similar.  The skills and values required for their work are quite similar.  Great strength and efficiency should result from merging them into a single advocacy agency. 

(3) Both Pensions and the General Council on Finance and Administration require expertise in matters of finance.  Therefore, they should be combined into a finance agency; and that agency should also be assigned primary responsibility for audit and legal advice. 

(4) The General Board of Global Ministries, with its focus on mission and connectionalism, should continue as a separate agency.  It should conduct a self-study that will result in a clear definition of its objectives.  The study should show how the agency serves local congregations.  In the simplified structure of the denomination, the channels to mission must be extremely clear.  We need pipelines–not a reservoir.  When the local congregation is called upon to support missions beyond the local church, it should be presented with meaningful options.  Strict accountability should reign.

(5) The General Council on Ministry, Higher Education, and United Methodist Men all focus on ministry and should be combined into a single agency. 

2) Completely reorganize and redefine the superintendency of the church, particularly the role of the district superintendent.

In many conferences, the function of the office of district superintendent is antiquated.  District superintendents in many conferences continue to build the entire work of their office around charge conferences and appointments.  Charge conferences do little that contribute meaningfully to the life of the church.  If the object of the office is to gather information, modern technology offers far more effective means.  John Wesley would not have left home without a lap-top computer, if one had been available to him.  If the idea is for the superintendent to feel the pulse of the local congregation, then a surprise visit, spontaneous questions, and real conversation would be far more effective than the use of form reports that cannot possibly capture the real life of a vital congregation.  There is a tendency for districts themselves to be organized around an antiquated job description of the work of the district superintendent. 

The district superintendent should spend the greater portion of his/her time concentrating on the ministries of local congregations that are vital and growing, and less time dealing with the problems of congregations that are not intent on vital Christian ministry.  Small congregations should not be neglected.  But the Superintendent’s work should focus on the living, growing church.  The object is vital life–not slow death.

The redefinition of the superintendency will necessarily entail an in depth study of appointment making.  The object should always be effective ministry-not what can I do with this preacher who has now had seven consecutive one year stands that neither s/he nor the congregations thought were beneficial.  The local congregation must have a stronger input into the process.  Ineffective preachers should not be guaranteed appointments–or employment of any kind for that matter.  Also, the effects of length of tenure must be carefully evaluated.  In our mobile society, there is less need for a rapid turnover itineracy than in the earlier days of this country.

3) Carefully define the role that council directors (or their equivalents) and resident bishops should occupy vis-a-vis the general boards and agencies.

The annual conference should be the clearing house of vital ideas.  The resident bishop and the leadership of the staff of the annual conference (council director or other) should strongly focus on the connection between the (hopefully merged) general agencies and the local congregation.  Not less frequently than annually, there should be a gathering of resident bishops, council directors, and the leadership of boards and agencies in which the boards and agencies are given the opportunity to “market their wares” to the local congregation through the annual conferences.  The structure of the merged boards and agencies should intentionally place the membership of the boards and agencies in direct touch with the people who are managing the business of the annual conferences.

4) Intentionally appropriate the advantages of modern technology into the service of the connection.

The world of technology is burgeoning with opportunities for improved communications.  Computers can organize our data far more effectively than anything that we have done in the past.  Interactive, live image communication is already available and will soon be commonplace, drawing the world ever more closely together.  Mastery of technology is an essential feature of the transformation of the church if the church is to be an effective voice in the 21st century. 

5) Develop a skills-and-values approach to ministerial education.

The education of our clergy should center on skills and values.  This is not a suggestion that preachers do not need to know anything about theology.  But it is a suggestion that they should receive specific training for the skills that we expect of them.  A similar study of the education provided for lawyers, which examined the gap between the training provided by law schools and the expectations of the practicing profession, which was published in 1992, is revolutionizing law school education.  Not only must our clergy be trained in the skills that are needed, they must also deliberately acquire the values appropriate to their calling.

We must renew our confidence in the revealed truths of our Christian heritage.  Science provides no meaningful approach to normative force in the world in which we live, and it is far removed from an explanation of the mysteries of consciousness, let alone the deeper mysteries and meaning of our existence which we can only approach through vital religious faith.  Clergy must be convinced of its calling, and know that the they are dealing with matters of utmost importance.

6) Intentionally focus on the educational needs of laity, clergy, and lay pastors.

Better education and training are requirements not only for our clergy but also for the laity and lay pastors.  The world is changing, and the church must contend with the information explosion.  The newly developing information is an important facet of continuing revelation.  Lay persons can actually bring this information into the life of the church.  Lay pastors have always played a critical role in the life of our denomination, and they will continue to do so.  For the church to be effective, laity, lay pastors, and clergy must all be well-schooled in those aspects of our faith that are unique to the Wesley tradition.  While it is true that in our faith journey we should ultimately strive to grow beyond the limitations of denominationalism, it is also true that most of us are born into and find our nurture in a particular faith community.  The doctrine of Christian Perfection is still in full force and effect.

7) Affirm the local congregation as the focal point of ministry.

The General Conference has actually directed us in so many words to affirm the local congregation as the focal point of ministry.  Supporting local congregations should be the centerpiece of our plan for leading the church in a transformational direction.  We do this by moving the locus of decision making nearer to the local congregation.  Only when the motive forces of the members of local congregations are fully marshalled can the church be fully deployed in the world. 

The strategy of empowering local congregations knows no national boundaries.  For the church inside the United States, this means that the strategy of the church should be to empower and encourage local congregations to become fully active in ministry.  They should be active in their local geographical areas and should be supportive of missions throughout the world.  The same strategy applies outside the United States.  But outside the United States, we must grant more autonomy in order to fully empower local congregations to do their vital work.

8) Affirm the annual conference and its work through districts as the primary links of the connection.

The annual conference is the essential link in the connectional system.  Local congregations send delegates directly to annual conferences and receive reports back directly from annual conferences.  Annual conferences, therefore, tend to have great legitimacy in the minds of local congregations.  Annual conferences can be effective channels for organizing ministry throughout the geography of the conference and among all the constituent congregations.  The annual conference can be an effective clearing house for the work of the general agencies.  A major structural problem with the denomination is that the leadership of annual conferences and the work of general boards and agencies seems to pass like ships in the night.  The connection between them is not vital and meaningful to the denomination as it should be.  The leadership of the annual conference should not only know what assistance is available from general boards and agencies in order to make that assistance meaningfully available to local congregations.  The annual conferences should effectively communicate the needs of local congregations to the general boards and agencies.  In effect, the annual conference should be a broker firm or a clearing house for the work of the general boards and agencies.

9) Define and evaluate the work of all conferences, boards, and agencies in terms of their support for local congregations.

Every conference, board, and agency that is not a part of a local congregation should deliberately define and evaluate its work in terms of what it does to make local congregations more effective.  The annual conferences should hold them accountable to that task.

10) Make certain that the church structure beyond the local church is truly representative of the population in the pews, and the beliefs and values that they hold.

We are keenly aware of the fact that minorities are not always given adequate voice in the decision making bodies of the church.  But we are much less sensitive to the rights of the majority.  In our quest to provide representation for minorities, we create structure that diverges considerably from the actual people who occupy the pews.  The General Conference itself would not likely pass muster if the standard of one person one vote were applied.  Fully realizing that the majority is not always right, and that God can reveal His will through one person, we have yet arrived at a better organizational tool for arriving at consensus than through a representative democracy.  If the powers that be are ordained of God, then recent historical events seem to indicate that democracy is blessed.  We must strive to be both representative and inclusive.  Non-representative bodies should be altered to become representative, unless they have been created by a representative body for a particular purpose.  The message of the Gospel was not dominated by social purposes in the first century and its effectiveness in the 21st century will not depend on its social purposes.  The Gospel message is the source, not the result, of our most important social values.

11) Create a process of dialogue in which the foregoing suggestions can evolve without threatening the careers of those who have dedicated their lives to the denomination.

The United Methodist Church is a very large, very complex institutional structure with decision-making authority localized at many different levels and locations.  It would be a tragic mistake to attempt to present a definitive structure to a single general conference session for its action.  Such an approach implicitly assumes that by acting upon static concepts of structure, we can effect the needed transformation of the church.  While we can envision, in a general way, the desired outcome of the transformational change, the change itself must evolve from within the living organization of the church.  The people who will be vitally affected by the transformation must feel a participatory interest in working for the needed changes.  The most effective structure will arise from dialogue within the existing structure, if we are successful in our efforts to establish a vision of what the church should be.  The changes that are needed will require time.  The General Conference of 2000 should adopt our proposal as a long range plan, but with specific directions for merger activities that are to take place.  One quadrennia will probably need to be devoted to the concepts of merger and the redefinition of superintendency.  These matters could be formally acted upon at the 2004 General Conference.  A second quadrennia would then be required to establish the new working relation between and among the merged agencies, the annual conferences, and the more autonomous central conferences.  These matters could in turn be given clear definition at the General Conference that occurs in the year 2008. 

12) Create a decision making process that is inclusive and effective, and    that is built on participatory interest.

Already within the church, as in the rest of American society, hierarchical structure has started to break down.  It is being replaced by more effective interactive models.  In a knowledge based culture, this shift is inevitable.  Knowledge is the jointly owned property of the many, and cannot be effectively managed from the top of a pyramid.  The shift to interactive models is to be encouraged.  It is the only way for the people in the pews to develop a participatory interest in the work of the church.  It is not just a matter of us– “the real leaders” to cause the membership to feel that it is involved–the membership must be involved in the vital ministry of the church.  The membership itself permeates the world, and is the real voice of the church.  Its knowledge will be the power of the church–the word of God incarnate.  Consensus, dialogue, and participation are all words that help to capture the communal spirit that must permeate the church.  We are a communal people.  We partake of one substance.  Our decisions must be the product of true team work.  The wisdom of God is given to the entire group.  The apostle Paul advocated a division of labor in the body of Christ, but recognized that there is “one spirit.”

IV.  The Global Church

Unquestionably, the United Methodist Church has missional objectives throughout the world.  In that sense, it is a global church.  In fact, it is a part of the one true church, apostolic and universal, whose holy faith we reverently and sincerely declare every Sunday.  However, it is more meaningful to approach the global work of the church in terms of mission rather than in terms of status.  A claim of globality does not add anything to the vitality of the church.  We should be global in mission and ministry.  All that I have said previously about the church outside the United States is a discussion of the Global Nature of the church.  The proposal for more autonomy, and for moving the locus of decision making closer to the local congregations outside the United States is central to what I am suggesting about dealing with the global nature of the church.  The urgency of the gospel must be recognized.  The world needs Christ.

However, the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy of church management is the last thing that we need at the present time.  Our global work can be effectively organized within the context of presently-existing structures.  The possibility of directing a part of the work of the church through the World Methodist Council and the World Methodist Conference should be carefully explored.  The implementation of the plans that emerge from the process of creating autonomy for the creation of structures in the central conferences will give rise to the structures that are needed to carry out the global mission of the church.

The Council of Bishops itself is a global entity.  The Council should be a source of strategic planning for the global mission of the Church.  The Global effort should be one of collaboration and collegiality among the various branches of the church, with a continuing loyalty to the central tenets of the denomination.  It should not be another layer of bureaucratic legalism.

Conclusion

The foregoing suggestions are tendered to my colleagues on the Connectional Process Team in an effort to facilitate our work together.  Some of the efforts that we have made at this point have been frustrating.  We seem to have started anew at almost every meeting.  The explanation that before we could work together we had to get acquainted seems a bit odd.  After all, we are all members of the same denomination.  But in fairness, I must admit that the suggestions that I am now submitting are not at all the same suggestions that I would have submitted at the outset of our work.  These suggestions have been shaped by our discussions, and informed by learning process in which we have all engaged.

1) An Account Dale’s United Methodist Church Activity

by Dale | Sep 17, 2020 | United Methodist Church Activity

            I joined the Methodist Church[1] at Bradford’s Chapel in Macon County in 1958 at age 16 on profession of faith.  I had been involved in the Methodist Youth Fellowship for several years.  My cousin Ralph Segrest, a local pastor in the North Georgia Conference was preaching a revival at Bradford’s when I made the decision to join.[2]  The preacher at Bradford’s at that time was Pruitt (Bill) Willis.  In those days the Sub-District concept was widely practiced, and youth from groups of churches came together on a monthly basis for a Sub-District meeting.  Preacher Willis told me that I really needed to join the church, since I had already been elected president of the Philip Embury Sub-District.  I was also serving as president of the local MYF in the La Place Circuit, of which Bradford’s Chapel was a part.  I had been attending the church all my life, and had strong commitment to the tenets of faith embraced by the Methodist denomination, but had never gotten around to joining.  I had no hesitancy about joining on profession of faith.

            The First Methodist Church of Tallassee was a part of the Philip Emory Sub-District, as were East Tallassee and Carrville that are both located in Tallassee.  My earliest contact with The First Methodist Church in Tallassee, where I have been a member for over 40 years, was through the Sub-District meetings.  Rev. Cliff Abbot was the Preacher at Tallassee in those days.  I recall a bit of a controversy in the Sub-district about the fact that people (like me) were too young to come.  I was probably 11 years old at the time.  Brother Cliff, if I remember right, raised the protest.  Roy Sublette was the preacher at Bradford’s Chapel and I had only recently started attending MYF.  He settled the controversy by explaining that it was his car and his gas, and if he could get us to attend, he was going to do so.  Of course, that was several years before I was elected president of the Philip Embury Sub-District.

            I’m sure that my early church involvement entered into my decision to attend Huntingdon College, a Methodist institution.[3]  Mrs. Steele Bibb, my high school principal, was one of the Methodist saints who directed my path to Huntingdon.  I had played basketball at the tiny Shorter High School and thought I was pretty good.  It was probably Mrs. Bibb that somehow, induced Coach Neal Posey, Huntingdon’s basketball coach, to recruit me and offer a scholarship a scholarship of sorts.  Later I realized that a high ACT score had a lotjj more to do with my recruitment than my athletic skill.

            Regardless of the reasons, and despite some protest from my family, who felt that I should attend Troy State Teachers College[4], where my older brother Wade and cousins Dean and LaRue Spratlan had attended, I enrolled at Huntingdon in the fall of 1960.  I dropped out of basketball the first semester.  Near the end of the first year, my bride to be, Betty Menefee nominated me, and I was elected class president for my sophomore. I was elected again for the junior years.   During my third year, I was elected president of the Student Government Association and served in that position my senior year.[5]  I received a $500[6] National Methodist Scholarship that year, which allowed me to discontinue my work in the dining hall, where I had loaded lots of dishes into the dishwasher and cleaned lots of tables during my first three years.

            During my Huntingdon years, I attended First Methodist Church in Montgomery. Dr. Joel McDavid was pastor and Johnny Trobaugh associate pastor during those years. Johnny had been the preacher at Bradford’s Chapel, and would later serve as preacher in Tallassee, so he was my preacher at three different locations.  I became an affiliate member First Methodist in Montgomery. There was a Sunday School class for Huntingdon Students, and transportation.  On campus, I was active in the Huntingdon Christian Association.   I am certain that the fact that I attended Huntingdon contributed greatly to my later involvement and commitment to the United Methodist Church.  I’ve spent a great deal of time trying to repay that National Methodist Scholarship.

            After I graduated from Huntingdon in 1964, Betty Menefee and I were married at the La Place Methodist Church in Shorter, Alabama.  La Place and Bradford’s Chapel were both on the same “Charge” and shared the same preachers. Betty and I were both born and reared in Shorter, where we met in the first grade.  We attended twelve years of public school at Shorter, MYF and Huntingdon together.  She was a cheerleader and I a basketball player at Shorter.  I suspect that the fact that she decided to go to Huntingdon had as much to do with my decision to go there as anything else. 

            So, in the fall of 1964, Betty and I moved to Tuscaloosa and I began Law School at the University of Alabama.  We attended Church at Trinity Methodist Church initially and later attended Forest Lake Methodist Church.  There was a chapter of Huntingdon Alumni in Tuscaloosa, and Betty and I participated.  Betty worked to try to pay our way.

            After completing Law School in 1967, we returned to Montgomery where I started law practice with the law firm Hill, Hill, Stovall & Carter.[7]  We joined Whitfield Memorial United Methodist Church.  Betty and I sponsored the Jr. High Youth group.  Starting with three members we grew to over thirty members.  I also served as a trustee at Whitfield.  Our sons Philip and Mike were born and baptized there.  I became involved in Huntingdon Alumni work almost immediately after returning to Montgomery.  But, in 1970, we moved our residence to Shorter and our church membership back to La Place and eventually Bradford’s Chapel.

            During the 1970’s I did legal work for the old Montgomery District of the United Methodist Church, for Huntingdon College, and for a number of local United Methodist churches.  I served for a period of time as a trustee of the old Montgomery District.

            In about 1970, I became a certified lay speaker in the United Methodist Church.  Over the years, it has been an honor to speak in numerous United Methodist Churches all over the Alabama West Florida Conference.  Unfortunately, I didn’t keep a diary of those engagements, but the number would probably be one hundred fifty or more churches, quite a number of them on more than one occasion. 

            While living in Shorter, Betty and I were quite active in both Bradford’s Chapel and the La Place United Methodist Church.  For a period of time, we entertained a Men’s Fellowship for the La Place United Methodist Church with a monthly breakfast in our home.[8]  Betty and I sponsored a Youth Group at Bradford’s.  I taught Sunday School and chaired the finance committee, among other activities and offices at Bradford’s.  I occasionally served as a delegate to Annual Conference.

            In 1979, we moved our membership to First United Methodist Church in Tallassee.  This was before we actually moved our residence to Tallassee.  A strong attraction to the Church was its music program.  Philip was especially interested in music, and the strong music program appealed to us.  Soon Betty, Philip and I were all involved in the choir.  Philip and Mike were involved in the children and youth programs.  Betty and I served for a period of time as sponsors of the Youth Group.

            In 1982, I was invited to serve on the Board of Trustees of Huntingdon College.  I served in that capacity continuously until 2004.  I chaired the Board from 1995 to 1999.  The College fared quite well during my tenure as Chair.  I feel that my role on the board was to strengthen the relationship with the United Methodist Church.  The College has a stronger and more meaningful relationship with the Church at the time of this document was initially written[9] than it has had for many years. That relationship has continued and improved down to the date of launching this website, in 2020.

            Sometime late in 1984,[10] I received a letter from a man named Huey Emfinger, who was District Lay Leader of the Mariana-Panama City District.  He was on the nominating committee of the Board of Laity, and wanted me to send biographical information, so that they could consider nominating me as Conference Lay Leader of the Alabama West Florida Conference.  The letter surprised me, to say the least.  I had never served in any capacity at the conference level of the United Methodist Church.  I had no idea what a Conference Lay Leader was supposed to do.  My brother, Wade, had served as District Lay Leader for the Montgomery District, so I called him to see if he was expecting to be considered for Conference Lay Leader.  He said no.  Betty and I prayed over the matter, and sent the requested material.  I didn’t even know Huey Emfinger, and really did not expect that I would be nominated.  I had no idea how my name had come to the attention of the nominating committee of the Board of Laity.[11]  In the Spring of 1985, I received word that I had been unanimously nominated for the position. 

            I took office as Conference Lay Leader at Annual Conference in June of 1985, and served until 1990.  I served, ex officio, on the Boards of the Children’s Home, the Homes for the Aging, the Conference Council on Ministries; and numerous other Boards and Agencies.  I attended their meetings.  During this period of time I spoke in churches throughout the conference 20 to 30 Sundays each year.  The pace was hectic.  I would often find myself in a strange pulpit on Sunday morning without having had any opportunity during a busy week as a trial judge to prepare anything.  I arrived at one church in Mobile with only the old worn out tennis shoes that I wore in our motor home.  I borrowed the preacher’s shoes and told the congregation that I could never fill his shoes!  All in all, I learned to speak from the heart, and to filter every word through personal experience.  It was a great experience. In 1990, I made the Laity Address to the Alabama West Florida Conference.  I attended district conferences in every district with Bishop Lloyd Knox.  In 1989, I spoke at the Laity Luncheon at the North Georgia Conference in Augusta.  In 1989, I spoke with Bishop C. W. (Handy) Hancock in every district conference on the subject of stewardship

            During my tenure as Lay Leader of the Alabama West Florida Conference, I became a member of the Southeastern Jurisdiction Association of Conference Lay Leaders and the National Association of Conference Lay Leaders.  I served as secretary of the Southeastern Jurisdiction Association and as treasurer of the National Association of Conference Lay Leaders.  Needless to say, I attended the meetings of those groups and came to know lay leaders throughout the denomination.

            One of the tasks of the Conference Lay Leader is to plan for the Laity Banquet for the Annual Conference Session.  This includes inviting speakers and entertainment.  To my knowledge, I invited the first woman speaker; the first black speaker, and the first black entertainer to participate in the event.

            The Alabama West Florida Conference is one of the few Annual Conferences in the denomination that had a consistent pattern of growth over the twenty five years while I was active at the conference level.  When I took office as Conference Lay Leader, the Conference was badly divided, ostensibly along theological lines, between evangelicals and liberals.  The church trial of Dr. Tom Butts had just occurred in 1984.  It was the first Church trial in many years—perhaps ever—in the Alabama West Florida Conference.  Dr. Butts was a prominent liberal, and had a large following.  Suspicions and paranoia ran at a high level.  As conference lay leader, I avoided theological issues like the plague.  I felt that the division between Liberals and Evangelicals had more to do with church politics and the appointment process than with theology.  I urged the laity to remain aloof from all the niceties of the theological differences and to gently but firmly be mirrors, to reflect and feed back to the clergy the embarrassingly petty nature of their differences.  I didn’t use those kinds of words, you understand. The “mirror” was our behavior and reaction and feed back.  It was existential.  It seems to have worked.  And to all those “Liberals” and “Evangelicals,” now that I am publishing these impressions—I love you all!

            Lest I be misunderstood, I never felt that theology is unimportant.  It is extremely important.  Each of us is called to faith at the highest level of which we are capable. An adequate theology for some of my uneducated friends may not be adequate for other friends, but remains an inspiration to me.  None of us “see through the glass” perfectly.  Theologically, I am a neo-conservative.  I believe that we must fully engage the powers of our minds and understand all that we can.  But ultimately our understanding fades away before the ultimate mysteries of our own existence, our consciousness, and the living, infinite God.  We are ultimately relegated to faith—pure faith. (link)  Faith provides the substance with which our intellects engage.  The glimpse of the infinite God revealed in Jesus Christ is the apex for our faith.  Neither the liberals nor the evangelicals would have been wild about my theological position—but that really doesn’t matter.

Huntingdon College awarded me an Honorary Doctorate Degree in 1989.  The actual presentation was made at the 1989 Annual Conference Session.  To my knowledge, it was the first Honorary Doctorate degree ever actually presented at the Annual Conference.  Since then, both Huntingdon and Birmingham Southern have occasionally awarded degrees at the Annual Conference.

            In 1988, I was elected to General and Jurisdictional Conference of the United Methodist Church on the first ballot at the Annual Conference.  It is my understanding that I was the first Conference Lay Leader ever to be elected to General Conference from our Annual Conference, and the first lay person ever to be elected on a first ballot. 

By virtue of being elected first, I was one of our delegation leaders, along with the clergy leader, Dr. John Ed Matheson.  Delegation leaders met with the leaders of other delegations from the Southeast on a number of occasions. I came to know both clergy and lay leaders from the Southeast, including many bishops and bishops-to-be.  I was elected to General and Jurisdictional Conference again in 1992, 1996 & 2000.  In 1996 I was again the first lay person elected, and a delegation leader.

            Lay candidates for General and Jurisdictional Conference are nominated by the Districts.[12]  Each of the nine districts[13] traditionally nominated five candidates.  In 1992 at the district caucus for the old Montgomery District, six names were lifted as possible nominees.  Edna Williams, a black lady from Bowen Chapel in Tuskegee was among the names lifted up.  She was well qualified.  She is the niece of a Bishop in the United Methodist Church.  She had just served as chair of the Council on Ministries in our Conference.  She was also the sole black person in the group.  When the voting was complete, I was nominated and Edna was not.  I withdrew my name, so that Edna could be included.  Someone asked if I would be willing to accept a nomination if it should occur that any nominee were unwilling of unable to accept nomination, and I said yes.  A few days later, I learned that one of the nominees had been a member of the United Methodist Church for only two years and therefore was ineligible, and so my name was included.  I also offered to withdraw my name after being elected that year at annual conference, when it appeared that neither Edna nor any other black person would be elected, but eventually Edna was elected without my withdrawal.

            In 2000, I was not nominated by my District as a candidate for election to General and jurisdictional conference.  I accepted that result with equanimity.  I had been privileged to attend in the past, and knew that although it is an honor to be elected, it is very hard work.  There was a procedure for nominating candidates at Annual Conference, although it was not used very often, and when used, seldom resulted in election.  I was nominated from the floor 1n 2000, and elected to both General and Jurisdictional Conferences.  I did not solicit that nomination, and have never solicited a nomination to church office.

            As mentioned previously, I was the first lay person elected to General and Jurisdictional Conference in 1888 and 1996.  The first lay person and the first clergy person elected to General Conference traditionally serve on the Southeastern Jurisdiction Episcopacy Committee.  That is the group responsible for the assignment of Bishops to conferences.  I served on that committee along with Dr. John Ed Matheson from 1988 to 1992, and we participated in the decisions concerning assignments of Bishops in 1992.  I was instrumental in bringing Bishop William Morris to the Alabama West Florida Conference.  He was the first Black Bishop to serve our conference.  From 1996-2000, I served on the Southeastern Jurisdiction Episcopacy Committee with Dr. Karl Steagall.  Karl and I participated in the decision to bring newly elected Bishop Larry Goodpaster to our conference, and to send Bishop Morris to the Tennessee Conference.

            While serving on the Episcopacy Committee, I was one of the draftsmen for rules to bring about a fundamental change in the way we elected bishops in the Southeastern Jurisdiction.  The implementing policies prohibited the vote swapping and block voting that had been widespread in our Jurisdictional Conferences in the past.  Delegation heads accepted the responsibility of education the delegation and bringing about compliance.  It worked.  It is now generally accepted that the plan we forged dramatically improved the process by which we elect Bishops.  Later I was asked to chair a subcommittee that continued to study the process and make recommendations.  By avoiding the temptation to overextend the power of peer pressure and moral persuasion, we protected the gains that had been made.  But you can’t take politics out of politics.  The process for electing Bishops in the Southeastern Jurisdiction is much better than it once was.

            In 1996, I was named by the Council of Bishops to a task force called the Connection Process Team.  The CPT was created by the 1996 General Conference and consisted of about 38 persons from throughout the denomination.  It was assigned the task of studying the organization of the denomination and recommending changes.  The bureaucracy of the Church had become unwieldy, unworkable, and burdensome.  While organizational structure cannot, in and of itself, bring about success in an organization, faulty structure can certainly impede success.  That much was clear to me from my familiarity with the operations of corporations in general. I was excited about the prospect of rethinking the way we do church.  I sought the assignment—the only church job I ever asked for.  The actual experience was challenging, to say the least.

Individually, the membership was a talented group of people and it was a pleasure to get to know them.  However, politics had preceded the organizational meeting, and two or three people managed to get elected to positions of leadership in the early stages of the process who probably should not have been the leaders.  The whole process should have been open, and group driven, but it was not. The leaders had their own agendas and did not want to address the central organizational problems.  They may not have realized that such was their motivation.  Others were either fellow travelers in commitment to the status quo, too piously “Christian” to disenfranchise the unfaithful leadership, or like me just too bewildered to find an effective solution.  As a consequence, we failed to fulfill our charge.  I was the voice crying in the wilderness, and became, no doubt, increasingly unpopular with a number of members of the group.  We did not produce a viable plan.  We did not assess the dynamics that were mal-functioning in the organization.  We did not address the structural flaws and deficiencies.  I actually wrote a proposal and presented it to the group, but it was unsuccessful. (link)  We never developed a shared vision for our Church.

I tried with all the energy I could muster to keep the process focused on what appeared to me to be our assignment.  I was unsuccessful.  However, the Lord indeed works in mysterious ways.  The Connectional Process Team united the Church in opposition to the plan it presented!  I must confess that I felt a sense of vindication as a result of the overwhelming defeat of the proposals of the Connectional Process Team by the General Conference of 2000.  Despite my disappointment in our product, that the four year, intense study of the denomination, its history, its theological grounding, its organizational structure, and its ministries, offered me unique opportunities for learning and spiritual growth.  The meaningful change for which I contended are effectively mandated by laws of economics that apply to our Church’s organizational structure, and if the church does not respond, the result will be disastrous for the denomination.  After all, God created the laws of economics.       

            In 2004, I was again nominated from our district as a candidate for General and Jurisdictional Conference.  Usually, after the first couple of ballots the candidates who receive the greatest number of votes tend to continue to receive more votes until they are elected.  In the process of balloting, three persons had been elected I was fourth in line for election, and was only one vote away from election for a fifth consecutive quadrennium.  The persons elected were all white males, two of them over sixty years of age and all seasoned leaders.  Good people, but the prospect was not good at that time for the election to General Conference of a woman, a black person, or a young person.  There was an excellent chance that unless something happened to change the course of the election process, all seven candidates to General Conference would be white males.  Experience told me that the composition of our delegation would affect our credibility and effectiveness at the conferences.  I withdrew my name from consideration, with a plea for a more inclusive delegation.  The delegation to General Conference eventually included a young person and two women, including my friend Edna Williams, the black lady from Bowen Chapel.  I was elected as an alternate to Jurisdictional Conference, and actually attended as a delegate.

            Certain office holders, including the conference lay leader, district lay leaders and delegates to General and Jurisdictional Conferences, are designated as members of the Annual Conference, in order to balance and equalize laity and clergy representation.  I served a member of the Alabama West Florida Annual Conference by virtue of various offices continuously from 1985 until 2010.

            At the conference level, have served on a Task Force to Study the Location of Annual Conference Headquarters; the Conference Episcopacy Committee (the equivalent of the staff-parish relations committee in the local church), the Committee on Investigations (which would investigate charges against preachers, if necessary) and the Conference Committee on Resolutions.  At the District level, I served as a trustee—including one year as chair of the district trustees.  I served on the board of Church and Society, which also makes me a member of the District Council.  I served as District Lay Leader and on the Board of Laity for three years in the early 1990’s.  I have served as legal counsel for the Montgomery Prattville District, and incorporated quite a few local churches and actually dealt with litigation and other legal issues, such as matters pertaining to church properties.  I did not charge for my legal work.

            At First United Methodist Church in Tallassee, I have serve as a trustee, chair the Long Range Planning Committee, a total a five years as chair of the Council on Ministries, one two year term as chair of the Administrative Board, and a two year term as Lay Leader.  As lay leader, I served ex officio on most of the boards and committees within the Church.  I served as a Lay Speaker for over 40 years, and have been privileged to speak from our pulpit a number of times. For the past three years I have served as delegate to Annual Conference from our local Church. I teach Sunday School occasionally.

During the late 1980’s and early 1990’s I served on the Board of Directors of the University of Alabama Wesley Foundation.  And I served on the Board of Directors of the Tuskegee University Wesley Foundation for several years.

To say that I have enjoyed my relationship with the Church would be a misuse of words.  Enjoy is just not what you do with the most important things in your life. Enjoy is much too temporary and superficial.   The relationship that I am describing is much deeper than that.  I have lived my relationship to the church and to the invisible, immortal realities that it represents.  To use James Fowler’s phrase, what I have described here is a large part of the myth of my personal existence.  It’s the good part.  It is what gives meaning.

The only Church offices that I ever remember seeking out were the certification as a lay speaker and the position on the Connectional Process Team.  I never campaigned for any office in the Church.  But I have been slow to say no.

[1] The denomination became the United Methodist Church in 1969, when it merged with the Evangelical United Brethren.

[2] Ralph is the only Methodist Preacher that I know of in my generation of the Segrest family.  Some of the earliest Segrest emigrants to this country were preachers, according to family tradition, but I have never verified this.  A preacher with the Segrest name was appointed to First Methodist in Tallassee early in the 20^th Century, but I do not know the family connection.  A distant cousin, Neil Segrest, twin brother of the late attorney Broward Segrest and son of Florida and Henry Neil Segrest late of Tuskegee, is a Presbyterian Preacher.  A great grandfather of Ralph and me, Rev. James Elizabeth Downing Braswell was a Circuit Rider and is buried at Bradford’s Chapel Cemetery.

[3] Because the College is affiliated with the Church, I count my activities with the College as part of my church work.

[4] Now Troy University

[5] The enrollment at Huntingdon that year was about 1100, if I remember correctly.  There were many “town students.”  A few years later, the establishment of AUM dramatically impacted on Huntingdon’s enrollment.

[6] Tuition, room and board were about $1100.00 per year at that time!

[7] Now Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black

[8] At the request of the pastor, we discontinued the fellowship in order to try to develop an even stronger circuit wide group at Bradford’s Chapel.

[9] December, 2004

[10] I was elected Judge in Alabama’s Fifth Judicial Circuit in 1982, and took office in January of 2003.

[11] Although I still don’t know how my name was suggested or by whom, I know that Dr. Roy Sublette (the one who insisted on bringing me to the Sub-District Meetings when I was 11) was director of the Conference Council on Ministries, and Marvin Ennis, a preacher who was at Huntingdon when I was there was on the nominating committee.

[12] For many years, the Alabama West Florida Conference has elected seven lay persons and seven clergy persons to General Conference.  Election to General Conference is also election to Jurisdictional Conference.  An additional seven lay and clergypersons are then elected to Jurisdictional Conference, for a total of 14 lay and 14 clergy.  The first persons elected to Jurisdictional Conference are alternates to General Conference.  Usually 4 alternates are elected for Jurisdictional Conference

[13] The number of Districts was reduced from nine to eight in 2004.