The 2008 General Conference took place in Fort Worth, TX from April 23 until May 2. (Attending about one-half of the conference, I was a Lifewatch observer and an alternate delegate.) A nightmare for the health-conscious, General Conference encourages delegates and observers to sleep too little, eat too much, exercise not at all, and crave caffeine and cookies all waking hours. But somehow, the 1,000 delegates, plus many additional onlookers, got through the ten days, more or less intact.

This year's General Conference had the theme, "A Future with Hope." That theme seemed a bit general for a United Methodist General Conference theme. After all, it could also be applied to the Girl Scouts, the Democratic National Committee, the Smithsonian Institution, and Duke Law School -- each of them being an institution with "A Future with Hope." But United Methodism has done this before. Remember "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors"?

Many of the conference's worship services, sermons, and presentations were real productions. They put to work all kinds of choirs, dance groups, musical instruments, sound amplification, lighting techniques, banners, screens, and technologies. During these events, the conference could be downright entertaining.

This General Conference was dedicated to "holy conferencing" more than anything else. A set of "Guidelines for Holy Conferencing -- What God Expects of Us," which instructed delegates how best to engage in public discussion and debate, was officially adopted by the conference. During the conference, "holy conferencing" became a phrase that could be found justifying practically everything. (To be sure, "holy conferencing" is an excellent ideal for which to shoot. However, if not given content by the Church's Scripture and Tradition, doctrine and morals, such conferencing can tend to transform Christian truth into just another opinion, just another option, among many others. Still, at its best, "holy conferencing" can serve the truth of the Church's faith.)

General Conference 2008 brought together the three branches of government of The United Methodist Church. As American government has executive, judicial, and legislative branches, United Methodist government has the same established branches. At General Conference, the three branches of United Methodist polity were on display and active. Please permit a few comments on them.

The United Methodist Church's executive branch is led by the Council of Bishops. Composed of around 70 active bishops, plus the many retired bishops, the Council is charged to lead and to teach the larger church. Once again, this problem was demonstrated at Fort Worth: the Council of Bishops, finding it impossible to teach the denomination on Christian sexual morality (the most contested matter in the denomination today), has invested itself in developing many plans for ordering the life, mission, and ministry of the church. It should also be noted that the bishops presided, some more ably than others, over the business sessions of General Conference.

The Judicial Council might be called United Methodism's Supreme Court. The nine members of the Judicial Council, some of whom are clergy and some of whom are laity, are elected by General Conference. The Reverend F. Belton Joyner, Jr., one of the most gifted and thoughtful members of the North Carolina Conference, was elected a member of the Judicial Council by the Fort Worth conference. Because of the 2008 election, the Judicial Council will be much more "liberal" or "progressive" than the 2004 Judicial Council was. This Council might well arrive at decisions that will test the unity of The United Methodist Church.

United Methodism's legislative branch is made up of the various conferences -- General Conference, Jurisdictional Conference, Annual Conference, and Charge Conference. The 2008 General Conference and its legislative committees acted on around 1,500 pieces of legislation. When all was said and done, "holy conferencing" was evidenced during the legislative sessions of the General Conference. Unfortunately, parliamentary complications, maneuverings, and snags often interrupted and cut short serious debates among the delegates.

In conclusion, it should be said that the 2008 General Conference was not "the answer" to the questions and challenges now facing United Methodism. Because of the Judicial Council election, The United Methodist Church now has two of its branches (judicial [Judicial Council] and executive [Council of Bishops]) headed in the "progressive" direction; only the legislative branch (General Conference) proved itself to be evangelical-to-moderate. All in all, General Conference 2008 did a good job of reflecting who we are and where we are, right now, as The United Methodist Church.

As far as you and I are concerned, we -- United Methodists in Carteret County, NC -- need to be faithful to Christ and His Church, day in and day out, come what may. For as Benedict XVI recently reminded us, this Christ is our future and our hope.