Here's an interesting commentary on the election of General Conference delegates and the way the United Methodist Church is governed. Does this suggest some reforms? For instance, should we forbid "giving anything of value" to General Conference delegates by groups seeking to "lobby" and "buy votes" from delegates? Can we provide delegates from poor countries with adequate support through "nonpartisan" General Conference sources and forbid the use of money to influence votes? African delegates do not have to live under the same Discipline as U.S. United Methodists--non-U.S. conferences have the freedom to modify their own Disciplines, why can't U.S. Jurisdictions have the same freedom?
How about the direct election of lay delegates to General Conference? This would be like the reform that occurred in the U.S. government in the early 20th century (during the Progressive Movement) when we changed the U.S. Constitution to allow the direct election of U.S. Senators, taking those elections out of the hands of State Legislatures. Somehow we could put the names of candidates for lay delegations before all local church members and not just the Lay Members of Annual Conferences.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
why can't U.S. Jurisdictions have the same freedom?
If we take this drastic step, why not just schism? There would be nothing to hold the Jurisdictions together at all other than creedal statements.
Post a Comment