Why I Support the Proposed International Structure

C. Ray Miller
Bishop, 1973-1993

April 1993

The March issue contained a lengthy report on the proposed new structure, which we hope General Conference adopts. It is not a perfect structure; there will be amendments to it. But I feel this structure has many benefits for the UB church.

The structure was developed in complete openness.

We realized from the beginning that it would be pointless to develop a structure in secret, thrust it upon people, and expect them to pass it. So we have spent the past four years keeping people informed about the restructure process and soliciting input. Many changes were made as a result of people's comments and concerns.

The structure was not done hastily.

Our work consumed four years, a multitude of man-hours, and thousands of dollars. The structure passed through many stages, as we wrestled with perplexing issues--big, philosophical matters, as well as little operational details--and continually fine-tuned our work. Nobody can say we haven't thought it through.

The structure calls for just one bishop.

The idea of electing just one bishop has been around for a long time, and I sense very little opposition to it. I have enjoyed working as part of a team--first a team of four bishops, and since 1989 a team of three bishops. We complement each other in many ways, and benefit from each other's counsel. However, I feel the time has come for just one person at the top to set the denomination's vision and direction, and to lead with strength, authority, and a single voice.

Actually, there will be very little change in this area. The bishop will be elected by the international body, as is done now. The bishop can come from any of our constituent countries, as is true now. The bishop will give spiritual oversight to the entire denomination, as the bishops do now. The main difference is that there will be just one bishop instead of three.

The structure gives more authority to conferences and national groups.

We are also pushing authority out to the conferences and national assemblies, where it belongs. It doesn't make sense to require that every conference and national group follow the same organizational documents, because their situations are too different. Effectiveness is far more important than uniformity.

We've been doing the same thing at other levels. In 1989, we gave churches the freedom to implement whatever structure best fits their situation and needs, and the results have been very positive. It makes sense to give conferences (which presently include the overseas groups, to be called "national assemblies") freedom to establish whatever organizational structure fits their situation and needs.

In the US conferences, superintendents will provide administrative oversight. Each national assembly will have its administrative counterpart. Canada's superintendent is now called the president. Sierra Leone elects a general secretary, with several district superintendents working under him. Jamaica and Honduras may choose to stay with a team of superintendents (as some US conferences do), and Hong Kong and Nicaragua may stick with a single elected leader (as some US conferences also do).

The structure isn't much different from what we have now.

People say, "Do we really need to make all of these changes?" I don't think we are making many changes. In practice, we will operate very much as we do now.

We took great care to minimize the amount of change. The flow chart published in the March issue shows that the new structure differs very little from the present structure. We're not adding more bureaucracy. The claims rumors that we're making sweeping changes just don't hold water.

The structure recognizes the sovereignty of nations.

We are not saying we want to become an international church. A lawyer who specializes in cross-country relationships told us that we are already an international church; we have constituents scattered around the world, and our work is international in scope. However, we are not organized as though we are an international church. We still operate under rules established in the early 1800s, when we were only a United States church. We have some catching up to do.

In 1991, officials of Ontario Conference consulted a lawyer about incorporating as a conference. The lawyer asked for copies of their Constitution and by-laws, and he was given a copy of the UB Discipline, which contains both.

"When did you adopt this Constitution in Canada?" he asked.

"What do you mean? This Constitution was adopted in 1841 at a meeting in the United States, and we've always followed it."

"But when did the United Brethren people of the sovereign nation of Canada adopt it?"

The Canadians learned that they can't allow themselves to be bound by document created in another country, unless they vote among themselves to adopt it. They cannot in any way abdicate authority over themselves. They needed to officially adopt their own Constitution and bylaws.

This reality forced us to reconsider how UBs around the world relate to each other (something other denominations did long ago). It wasn't a matter of allowing Canada to adopt its own Constitution and Discipline; they had to do that. Our task was to adapt our structure to accommodate this requirement. We couldn't let government regulations force a split in our denomination.

We realized that this didn't conflict with the principle we had been following--putting greater ownership and flexibility closer to the grassroots. So we made provisions for national sovereignty, while also ensuring a degree of "quality control" over doctrine and other standards.

To be a truly international church, we need to create a place for national entities. This includes allowing for a United States entity--something which doesn't currently exist. What body represents the United States conferences? There is none. They = come together only at General Conference, which is an international body. In the process, we skip a step. The proposed structure allows for a United States National Assembly, which consists of the various annual conferences. There will also be national assemblies in six other countries--Sierra Leone, Jamaica, Hong Kong, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Canada--and they will relate to each other not as franchises of the United States, but as somewhat autonomous entities united in worldwide ministry.

A second issue which arose out of this concerns how Canadians give money to support the denomination. Canadian tax laws are particularly strict. In the area of missions, we solved this problem through a financial arrangement called a Joint Ministry Agreement. Since the present agreements are not acceptable to Revenue Canada (and not particularly acceptable to the Board of Missions over the exact same issue), the new agreement will be different in some respects, but accomplish the same thing.

Canadians have been giving about $20,000 a year through general benevolences to support other denominational interests--the bishops, departmental operations, etc. They can no longer contribute to general benevolences, through which all North American conferences give a percentage of their resources to support denominational needs. Revenue Canada sees that as Americans placing a "tax" on Canadians, and they won't allow it. So in the future, that $20,000 will be received on a "fees and services" basis. Essentially, we will "bill" Canada for the use of a bishop and his expenses, for MLD, for denominational newsletters, etc. This is okay with Revenue Canada.

The structure tries to anticipate future problems between countries.

Obviously, we can't anticipate every possible issue or conflict which might arise in the countries where we minister. But the proposed structure makes us better prepared to deal with problems as they arise. In particular, it means overseas churches will be organized in ways consistent with their own culture, needs, and national laws, and will have much more authority over themselves.

We don't know what will happen in 1997, when China takes control of Hong Kong. But the new structure will give our Hong Kong people more authority and flexibility to deal with the situation locally, without looking to Huntington for direction and permission. We need to do this now.

The Canadian situation caught us off-guard and sent us into a flurry of activity. We need to avoid letting that happen in the future.

Right now, this is only an issue in Canada. It is not an issue in Jamaica, Sierra Leone, and other countries where we operate. But though it would be more convenient to merely make a special allowance for Canada and deal with other situations on a case-by-case basis as they arise, wisdom dictates that we use our knowledge to anticipate the future and to bring our structure into line with international realities. The proposed structure will enable us to be pro-active, rather than reactive. We don't want to foolishly risk being caught unprepared and forced to act in haste...again.

The structure recognizes our total constituency.

About one-third of all UBs live outside the United States. However, when it comes to representation and input, our current system requires a double standard--one for the people of the United States and Canada, another UBs living everywhere else.

As an international church, we need a structure which is fair to everyone. The proposed structure does that by subjecting all national groups to the same representation formula. Since half of the formula involves monetary contributions, it is heavily weighted in favor of the United States and Canada. But at least everyone is playing by the same rules.

The structure holds the line on expenses.

Cost factors were crucial throughout the structure deliberations. According to the rough figures we've been able to put together at this point, the total cost will be about the same or a bit less. The structure minimizes costs, while enabling us to do everything we want to do.

The structure recognizes diversity.

Nearly everything in our present Discipline was written primarily with the United States in mind (since nearly all General Conference delegates are from the US). And everyone, regardless of country and culture, must follow the same Discipline.

The new structure recognizes that standards and structures don't always translate neatly from culture to culture. We spent an enormous amount of time looking for the right amount of flexibility coupled with the right amount of accountability and control. I think we found a good balance.

The principle of cultural diversity is very important. I would hate to see us lose it.

The structure will free General Conference to focus on ministry.

Currently, we bring people from all over the world and spend most of five days discussing ways to change the Discipline--matters regarding local church officers, duties of conference superintendents, opposition to lotteries, constituency of the conference council, etc.

Since the new structure gives each national assembly authority over its own organizational documents, General Conference will have little to fuss over and change. That means we might be able to devote much of General Conference to ministry issues.

For instance, each national assembly could give a report to the international body about the work in their own country, and the various US conferences could do the same. Wouldn't that be more valuable than haggling over how to process church ballots?

Implementing the new structure will free us to focus on ministry.

During the past four years, many of our best thinkers have been preoccupied with structural issues. I'd love to channel that time and energy into ministry issues. But one of my great fears is that we'll emerge from General Conference not with a new structure, but with yet another task force to study structure.

Our infatuation with structure is already a big joke among pastors and laity alike. I don't want to perpetuate that scorn. Plus, I don't want to divert the incoming bishop's attention from the vision-casting and leading that we want him to do--and that we need.

Some voices of caution say, "We're going too fast. Let's study this some more and decide in 1997." Personally, I think we've proceeded slowly and deliberately. Maybe we could satisfactorily address more people's doubts by 1997--but I wouldn't count on it. I've attended enough General Conferences to know that four more years may not make a bit of difference.

We've done our homework, and involved large numbers of people in the total process. The proposed structure needs some amendments, but it's basically ready to be implemented. Why wait? Let's do it now.