Well, I missed writing my blog over the past two days for a couple of good reasons: (1) My roommate, Bill Arnold, has been sound asleep when I got to the hotel, so I did not want to disturb him with my pecking on this computer, and (2) most of our business was “business as usual” as we met in sub-committees (smaller groups within our legislative committees). Some folks on the Annual Conference level do not appreciate the legislative process. This experience has shown me that for good/bad, it certainly gives everyone an opportunity to participate and have voice where many would not speak before the entire Conference.

Anyway, I “volunteered” to be the secretary of our sub-committee (Worldwide Nature of the UMC). This group has dealt with three petitions that are offered after the study of a Task Force related to the Council of Bishops and the Connectional Table. The brief version of these proposals is that the UMC connection would/could/may (we spend hours on one word!) be structured by “regional” (presently, central) conferences which have the authority to determine their missional priorities as well as a variety of other matters including standards for ordination, social principles and chargeable offenses. One of the key questions is whether the US also would become a regional conference. This, as some see it, would de-centralize the power and influence of the US church and empower the church in other parts of the world. On the other hand, decisions would be more localized. Obviously, this would create local expressions of the UMC and move us toward dis-unity. Some of us are holding fast that the final word re the issues that shape our church should be at the General Conference, not regional or jurisdictional conference level. To move to 4 or 5 regional conferences in the US would create a very fractured church. The proposal coming out of our Committee would allow for a group to study this proposal for another 4 years.

I’ll have some free time tonight (Sunday) to share more thoughts so stay tuned.