The UMC.org site updates us on ongoing committee work to suggest new ways to shape the global United Methodist connection. It looks like people are engaged in careful, prayerful, and pragmatic effort to address the nature of the denomination.
Some of the directions and decisions that the committee has made include:
* Leaving the question of ordination of non-celibate homosexuals to the General Conference (headline issue for many)
* Granting more autonomy to regional bodies
* Shortening and simplifying the Book of Discipline (Yeah!)
* Preserving the Council of Bishops (I did not know that was in question)
* Retain the Social Principles in the Book of Discipline (Could we clarify whether these are law or guidance?)
And the last one surprised me: “Retain doctrinal standards such as the Articles of Religion, Confession of Faith and General Rules as binding for the worldwide church.”
Two points of interest to me here. First, that phrase “such as” usually means including the items mentioned, but it could mean in this case – other stuff that is like these items. This confuses me because I thought the Restrictive Rules meant those things could not be moved or done away with, which makes me wonder why the committee had to discuss it all.
I may be missing something.
Second, are the standard sermons left out intentionally?
I am a part-time local pastor serving 
The doctrine of original sin is surely more humbling to man than the opposite: And I know not what honour we can pay to God, if we think man came out of His hands in the condition wherein he is now.
Just finished a class with Billy Abraham on the AR/CF. The restrictive rules make it insanely difficult to change our doctrinal standards in the constitution, but it can be done.
As far as the sermons are concerned, I always wonder if its the 44 or the 56. We’ve never determined that in the UMC. British/Irish methodism go with 42; the sermons and notes are their doctrinal standards as they have no Articles.
As for the place of the Sermons and Notes, that’s an ongoing debate between Tom Oden and Richard Hitzenrater. I can find the names of some articles they wrote if ya want. let me know.
Personally I would like to see the AR/CF rewritten and combined. Take out the anti-catholic and anti anabaptist language, harmonize similar statements, and severely alter the Article regarding the nature of the church’s relationship to the civil government.
Kurt, thanks for the comment. I’ve read a summary of the debate over the place of the sermons and notes. In fact, here is a link to a blog post about Oden that includes a brief summary of the debate: http://theivybush.blogspot.com/2010/04/number-15-thomas-c-oden.html
I’m not up for reading about it in more depth at the moment, but I appreciate your offer to help.
I wonder if part of the reason we don’t change the standards is because it is so hard – which then causes us to tacitly agree to more or less ignore parts of them. It might be healthier for the church if it were easier to change the standards. That is just idle speculation though and probably not worth spending my time thinking about.