What Does it Mean to be an "International" Church?

Throughout the 1990s, we've been working on ways to bring our colonial-era organizational structure into line with the current world and international law.

This summer, at General Conference, we hope to finally get it done.

Next summer some major, major changes will probably occur in how we are organized as a denomination. Now, imagine for a second that you actually care.

General Conference, our highest governing body, will meet June 25-29. The 70-or-so delegates, representing seven countries, will spend Monday through Friday hearing reports, electing people to various jobs, and discussing proposals to change this and that. General Conference is a big deal for us. And this year's edition will be an especially big deal, because of the need to adopt a proper international structure. We've got one now. It's just not proper.

We're talking drastic change. So drastic that, long after the changes take effect, you'll ask: "What changes? I haven't noticed anything."

And you probably won't. Which raises the burning question, Why bother?

What's more, these changes aren't intended to make us more effective at winning the world to Christ. Nor are they intended to save money. Which raises yet another question you may have heard before: Uh, why bother?

Good, good questions. I'm glad I put them in your mouth. Now I'm going to answer them and, in the process, try to help you understand what in the world all this fuss is about. Because it's important fuss. I promise. You may not notice anything different when all's said and done, but the cause is just. Really.

Important Reader Notice: What follows is somewhat mundane stuff about organizational structure, so it won't hurt my feelings if you listen to the sermon instead.

How We Got into This Situation

Back in 1841, we adopted our current Constitution. In those days, United Brethren churches existed only in the United States. As we started UB churches in other countries, they followed that same Constitution. So what started as a USA constitution began functioning as an international constitution.

Call it colonialism--one country running a bunch of other countries. Currently, our overseas churches are supervised by the Missions Commission, which is mostly a US group. It's the US church, with branch offices scattered around the world. That's not what we want, but it's what has developed over the years, and we need to change it. National groups need to be on the same level--not the US and Canada at one level, and everyone else at another level.

While UB churches in other countries have willingly followed the Constitution of 1841, it has no true authority over them. A document written by United States people has no actual authority over people in Jamaica, or Hong Kong. People in one country cannot tell people in another sovereign country what to do.

Sovereignty exists at a lot of levels. The US can't tell Turkey how to run its court system. GM can't tell Ford where to build a factory. UCLA can't tell Indiana how to hire a basketball coach. You can't tell your neighbor which brand of lawn mower to use; you can stop talking to him and can build a big fence between your yards, but you can't order him around.

But the way we've been set up, the USA pretty much runs the show and sets the rules. And that needs to change.

News flash: colonialism is dead.

Canada Started It

The various conferences in North America contribute a certain amount to the denominational budget, in porportion to their size. But in the early 1990s, we realized this didn't work with Canada.

The Canadian IRS, called Revenue Canada, said, "Hey, you people in Indiana can't order Canadian people to send you money. And if they do send money, we won't let them count it as a charitable deduction. Unless certain requirements are met."

Well, we met those requirements, and all's fine. A basic requisite was that our Canadian churches have their own Constitution, rather than operate under the US-written Constitution of 1841. So now they do. They basically govern themselves (the bishop has no administrative authority in Canada). It's been that way since 1993.

The other countries will be the same way. Jamaica, Honduras, Sierra Leone, Nicaragua, Hong Kong--the 1997 General Conference instructed them to develop their own governing docs. So after this summer, only the United States churches will still operate under the Constitution of 1841 (for those churches, the Constitution of 1841 has never stopped being binding). And that's the way it should be.

We'll then have seven "national conferences"--the USA, Canada, Jamaica, Sierra Leone, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Hong Kong. Each with its own Constitution. Each with its own leader--a President in Canada, a General Superintendent in Honduras (the US will need to decide what to call its own head person). And each voluntarily agreeing to follow a new set of documents designed specifically to bind us together internationally.

How Will the National Conferences be Tied Together?

We don't want a bunch of national groups doing their own thing. We need standards, shared doctrines, things we do together, ways to remain intertwined as United Brethren.

So, to be part of the international United Brethren church, each conference will need to follow these four documents:

1. The Confession of Faith. This key doctrinal statement was adopted in 1815, and has never been changed. It's our line in the sand.
2. The Core Values. These six statements focus on principles and attitudes which have characterized us over the years.
3. The International Constitution. Two-thirds of the national conferences must ratify any amendments.
4. The International Bylaws. General Conference can amend the bylaws by majority vote.

Yes, there will still be a General Conference every four years. It will include delegates from each national conference, but it won't be dominated by the United States, as is now the case.

Most General Conference business has focused on United States issues. Now, there will be a separate US National Conference to handle stuff like conference boundaries, educational requirements for ministers, and other things (the other national conferences will deal with those issues in relation to their own churches).

Meanwhile, General Conference will focus on matters of interest to all UBs worldwide.

What's in the Constitution?

Not much. It talks about how a national group becomes part of the worldwide UB church (Mexico, India, or Haiti will probably be our next national conference).

Once a year, the heads of the seven national conferences will meet somewhere in the world, to deal with any business before them and promote ways to work together.

Any assets within a country become property of that national conference. So the UB Headquarters and Huntington College become property of the US National Conference.

Currently, representation at General Conference is based on a combination of people and giving. The US already has the most people and churches, so it gets a majority of the delegates. But since the US also gives most of the money, that seriously tilts the balance even further in the US's favor. In the new structure, representation at General Conference will be based only on people. We believe that's how God sees things--people, not money.

There is a desire by some to have an "international bishop," someone operating between countries to help tie us together (kind of a United Nations General Secretary). This would add over $100,000 to the budget, but perhaps the delegates will consider it worthwhile (either now, or years down the road).

What About the United States?

The United States churches are divided into 11 geographic conferences. At General Conference, they are represented on an equal footing with the overseas conferences. However, no single group represents US churches as a whole. Michigan Conference, Rock River Conference, and all the other US conferences send delegates alongside Jamaica, Sierra Leone, Honduras, etc. There is a specific Jamaican group, a Honduran group, a Hong Kong group--but no US group. So that'll change.

In 1993, we did establish a US National Conference. But it has been more of a paper thing, needed to satisfy Revenue Canada--an entity Canada can sign agreements with. But after this summer, the US National Conference will become the major decision-making body for the US churches. The United States will choose its own leaders (without people from other countries voting on them), and can adopt whatever structure it wants.

No matter what the US structure looks like--a task force is recommending that it look a certain way, but that's not important here--a prime need is to get an international structure in place. All of the countries have been working hard, in good faith, to develop their governing documents. It would be too bad if the whole process, for everyone, got put on hold simply because the US can't decide what to do. But that could happen. And it would go against what we're trying to eliminate--namely, the US calling the shots.

But assuming all goes well, our relationships with UB churches in other countries will change. The United States will become partners with--rather than overseers of--our fellow national conferences. Most other denominations have already restructured in this way. The kids have moved out of the house and now have their own lives.

The United States and Canada, always closely allied, may create partnerships to continue working together--for instance, a joint North American Missions Board. Partnerships between national conferences--whether it's the US and Canada, or Honduras and Nicaragua--need to be worked out after this year's General Conference.

Finances

We can't expect all national conferences to suddenly support themselves and pay into the international structure. For the international structure to work, the United States must--at lease for now--be willing to continue using its comparative wealth to support the international church.

In the years ahead, we want national conferences beyond North America to increase their financial support for the international ministries. However, we know that some national conferences will be able to raise their giving, and some may never be able to do so.

The changes are not intended to save money (though that might happen). Rather, we're trying to correct real flaws in our structure and make us a truly international church.

A Time of Transition

As we make this transition, there will inevitably be issues requiring interpretation, specific situations which weren't foreseen but which must be dealt with, sticky details which nobody thought of in advance, and various other complications.

We won't be able to anticipate every problem in advance. Therefore, during the 2001-2005 period, we need to give extra leeway, trust, and grace to the various governing bodies as they, in good faith, implement the new structure and tackle whatever complications arise.

Some people won't understand the reasons behind these changes. Some will insist it's all unnecessary, or will envision devious motives. We already have people threatening to leave the denomination if the Constitution of 1841 stops serving as the Constitution for all UBs worldwide (which, really, is already the case; Canada and Hong Kong have had their own constitutions for several years now).

The fact is, we're faced with international realities nobody foresaw in 1841, and we're doing our best to set things straight. It won't be a totally clean process, and it won't take a high IQ to identify problems (it never does).

It's just that our current structure doesn't fit a truly international church--which is what we are. So we're trying to fix it without hurting anything.

If you don't like what you've read here, if you think we're headed in the wrong direction, may I offer a few suggestions:

• Try hard to understand the issues. Good people have wrestled with these issues for ten years. Give them the benefit of the doubt.
• Don't imagine hidden agendas.
• Put a positive light on things, assuming that your initial objections have good answers.
• Don't stir up dissension, and admonish those who do.

But as I said at the beginning: even if we adopt the proposals, you--the average person sitting in UB pews--probably won't notice any difference. And that'll be just fine.