beaconchurches

VALLEY FORGE, PA ( ABNS 06/29/08 ) — David Knipel, legal counsel to the denomination, reviewed with the General Board of American Baptist Churches USA, at its twice-yearly meeting, amendments to the bylaws that are needed for the proposed governance structure to be put into place. Limited to governance, the changes do not affect the purpose of the denomination, and no amendments were proposed relating to provisions for cooperating churches and regions.

The proposed structure takes financial realities into account, as it is designed to save money. But Mary Armacost Hulst, president of the General Board, said that finances are not the only concern: “We are acting out of the need to be relevant, efficient and effective in mission, and responsive to the culture.”

Hulst called on Lloyd Hamblin, acting treasurer and associate general secretary for finance, to clarify the financial implications of the new structure. He said that while the Treasurers Council recommended a reduction in governance costs by a minimum of 25 percent, the proposed structure reduces them by 43 percent. American Baptist Churches USA as an organization deals with vision, coordination, structure, leadership, and stewardship, but structure is the one area presently under discussion. Of the budgeting needs for the denomination, the new structure only affects the costs of governance.

A smaller General Board in the proposed new structure reduces administrative and meeting costs. The proposed board size of 30 would include members elected from 18 regions serving at any time, rotating representation among regions as the members’ terms for service expire.

Puerto Rico raised a concern regarding representation because of its uniqueness as a region. For instance, English is not its first language, it was a mission field of the Home Mission Society before it became a region, and it has a different political relationship with the U.S. government. Therefore, Puerto Rico conveyed to the General Board its need to have continuous representation in the new governance structure. The General Executive Committee will take up Puerto Rico’s concern at the Committee meeting in September.

The General Board will be able to suggest modifications to the proposed Bylaw amendments for the General Executive Committee to consider at its meeting in September. All changes to the Bylaws will be voted on by the delegates to the 2009 Biennial in Pasedena, Calif.

Art, I need your help. I cannot reconcile this from the "AMERICAN BAPTIST LEADERS ENDORSE NEW STRUCTURE" thread:

Mary Armacost Hulst, president of the General Board, said, “My local church in the new structure would be taken seriously. We would have a very strong voice that is central when we gather together to suggest ideas and implement ideas and vision for the denomination. Actually, representation could be even broader than it is now.”

with this from the above:

The proposed board size of 30 would include members elected from 18 regions serving at any time, rotating representation among regions as the members’ terms for service expire.

How will my church be better represented by having one person from the region on the board approximately 1/2 of the time? I don't even know how many representatives to the General Board my region gets now, and I've been associated with the ABC-USA for 40 years and a member of one ABC-USA church or another for the last 31 years. Right now, I know of at least three representatives from my region to the General Board, one even represents my Association (along with one or two others).

While I love the family, these three news stories posted here over the last several days are only deepening my feeling that I am considered a distant cousin. My church has no voice now. I don't see this changing anything for the better, though I do appreciate that it is the result of an awful lot of hard work for a long time. I can't say they aren't trying. I just wish we would spend half as much energy and time trying to be faithful to the simple teaching of scripture as we do making things far, far more complex and confusing than they need to be.

I share Jon's concerns. I would also like to know how we can be represented when we don't vote on these people. I have never voted for anyone in the 21 years I have been ABC outside of my church and Association ABW group.

I guess I could say that I share the founding fathers' concern of how can I be legally taxed when I'm not properly represented. I don't know who the General Board members are either but I'm willing to bet that if we were given ballots with what each candidate believes and has preached in the past, things might change at the top.

Mary's church will be taken very seriously. She is the President of the board. To the degree that she represents her church it will be well represented.
It sounds like 29 other churches will be represented as well, (though in my experience in the past some of the board members actually betrayed their church stands when at the general board.)

As for the other 3000 or so churches that still have connection to the old VF system, your money will still be welcomed. It will help to perpetuate a top down system that has little care for what happens in your church.

We are far better off with the federated system however. We can focus on our region, on our associations, on our church mission and best of all, on the Kingdom. Look to places like Green Lake to supply a sense of faithful family on a national level.

Art

Simple arithmetic. Currently the voice of board members is diluted by being one of more than 100 (120+ if memory serves me?).

Under the new system, you will only have to compete with 29 other voices. Each board member will have a better chance to be "heard" (i.e., 1/30 is MUCH better than 1/120).

As Art observed, that is NOT the same as better representation of the congregations. All studies of mainline denominations support the commonsense impression that pastors are more progressive than most congregations; judictory leaders are more progressive than pastors; and denominational headquarters people are more progressive than judicatory folks. In other words, a smaller board is NOT more representative of the "people." It is more accessible to the voice of the denominational headquarters staff.