National Board Report

Monday Evening, February 14, 2005

This report is written by Steve Dennie, the UB Communications manager. It is not intended to be strict "reporting," but rather notes and observations from the meeting. It was written and published live, as the meeting occurred.

February 14 - Afternoon | February 14 - Evening | February 15

The discussion over supper was pretty vigorous. Delegates realized we were bogged down and needed to energize the meeting, somehow. And the sentiment moved toward getting something, anything, on the table. And the more radical, perhaps the better.

There was also agreement that we needed to do something--that we couldn't come away from this meeting with nothing to show for it.

And so, we begin the evening session.

One National Conference

Mike Newman (Mid-Atlantic Conference) opened with a motion saying, "That whatever structure we adopt include only one annual conference, with the boundaries the same as that of the current national conference."

Sam Quinn said it would cause legal problems with California Conference. He said the trust fund, something unique to California Conference, requires the existence of an annual conference, and that lawyers would need to work on the documents.

Lowell Smith (Michigan) asked how it would affect the Lane Home Fund, a retirement fund in Michigan Conference for ministers. Bishop Hirschy said the conference could decide how to handle it.

Dan Paternoster (Michigan) raised a question about church planting as it affects Michigan Conference, which has a church planting director.

There were other "what if" questions.

How would people react to doing away with annual conferences? Was it even constitutional (according to the UB Constitution) to do away with annual conferences? Does the Constitution require that they exist?

Gary Dilley wanted to make sure we had rationale for this. The only rationale he had heard so far was, "We need to do something drastic." He wanted some real rationale about how this structure would make us more effective.

Anthony Blair said one rationale was that both proposals presented this afternoon--from UBHope and from the Bishop--recommended doing away with the conference structure.

Superintendents were asked to address the idea, and several spoke to it. Most favored it.

Roger Burk wanted more of an answer to the question, "What is the rationale for doing away with the conferences?" I threw in a comment to that affect, too. There were some responses. Like, it would open up the conferences to each other, so they could interact without the barrier of conference lines. It had the potential of solving some money issues, removing the cost of administering a conference. It would enable standardization of standards.

Mike Newman explained that his motion was mainly a way to test whether or not we had the will, or willingness, to do away with annual conferences.

Here are some points that were made in terms of rationale, as recorded by Roger Burk:

1. Stronger identity.
2. Expanding the working with others.
3. Simplifying structure--smaller groupings (clusters, etc.) can work more effectively.
4. Address the money issue.
5. Knock down boundaries that separate affinity groups.
6. Standardization of licensing.
7. Statement of unity.
8. Unified national purpose and vision.

They voted. It was a unanimous vote in favor. Wow. So, the National Board agrees that we don't need annual conferences.

Time for a break.

8:15 pm

Pat Jones said it's helpful to define what things we're willing to die for. He felt we needed to answer that question for the denomination--"Here are the things I want our denomination to represent and be known for." That gets to the rationale issue.

Pat suggested that we break into small groups to talk about that. No more than two persons from the same conference per group.

Oh, the group idea didn't fly. Stayed as a committee of the whole. So we're going with the scattershot "I've got one!" format. Here are some things to die for.

• Living up to our Confession of Faith and Core Values. (Michael Mudge)
• Emphasis on renewal or revival, and health. (Dave Burkett)
• We don't squabble over non-essentials. (Anthony Blair)
• Our heritage has included a social reform agenda. (Anthony Blair)
• Connecting with each other. (Dennis Burkholder)
• Being people of prayer (Lowell Smith).
• Recapture a mindset not only about populating heaven, but about making a difference here on earth. (Michael Mudge)
• Practicing theological and moral integrity. (Michael Mudge)

Dave Rahn stirred the pot, wondering if we're really, today, a denomination that truly is about winning the lost. It's a hill he would die on, and would like us to recover that, but doesn't think that's who we are anymore.

Pat Jones hitchhiked on that idea, though there were other comments in between. He said he'd love to be able to say that the UB church is really going after something in a cohesive, unified manner. He framed it in the context of winning the lost. "What will we, as a group, say is defining the UB church, and whatever it takes, we're going after those things?" He said we tend to come up with the "usual suspects" (my term) in terms of what we should be and do--evangelize, pray, etc. But we don't really go after something. That's a pretty loose paraphrase.

Denny Miller drew a distinction between what a local church does, and what a denomination does. He said most of the things we were discussing were things a local church does (ministry), rather than what a denomination does in support of local church ministry.

The discussion drifted off-course, wandering here and there. Maybe people were just getting tired. Anyway, I didn't find it urgent to record most of it. Got the important stuff.

At 9:00, Bishop Hirschy began wrapping things up. He dismissed the meeting with prayer. We would start up again at 8:30 on Tuesday morning.