by Steve | Mar 18, 2021 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, March/April 2021
By B.J. Funk –
“Plan your work and work your plan.” Sometimes, however, those plans have to be laid aside.
That’s where churches found ourselves this past year. Covid-19 took the lead role in the play called, “Think Again … You Actually Thought You Were in Charge?”
Actually, yes. We did. If not us, then who? Well, that would be God, of course. Proverbs 16:9 speaks of this: “We may make our plans, but the Lord directs our steps.” It could not be clearer. We must recognize that he has the last word.
No wishing or hoping can override the plan of God. If we can understand this, then we will move forward with a feeling of security. Deep down, we are thankful that One who is omnipotent actually makes the plans.
Napoleon, at the height of his career, is reported to have given this cynical answer to someone who asked if God was on the side of France: “God is on the side that has the heaviest artillery.”
Then came the Battle of Waterloo. Napoleon lost both the battle and his empire. Years later, when he was in exile on the island of St. Helena, completely humbled, Napoleon was reported to have quoted the words of Thomas à Kempis: “Man proposes; God disposes.”
Throughout this time of international pandemic, it is too easy for us to throw up our hands and completely give up on God with questions like, “Why is God doing this?” and “What purpose could he possibly have in mind?” and “Is this the beginning of the end of time?”
In answer to the first question, not one person on earth, even the wisest of scholars, has the perfect answer. His purposes, as the second question asks, are far too wide and too high for our finite minds. In answer to “Is this the beginning of the end of time” the answer would be, “Absolutely not. It is a continuing of the beginning of the end of time that entered our lives two thousand years ago.”
Jesus ushered in the last days. Since we are two thousand years into that ushering, it seems that God is not in any hurry to bring this truth to its final purpose. At least as we understand earth time.
A month into the pandemic, Maxie Dunnam provided this succinct explanation. “The coronavirus is not the will of God; this is not his deliberate judgment upon a sinful nation and an unfaithful church, and it is not any sort of announcement about end times. Listen to me now, listen carefully. I am not questioning God’s power. Even the winds and the waves obey God simply through the word of His Son. This is not God’s will, but God has a will in the midst of it.”
What we can all possibly agree on is that our lack of speaking out against sin has come home to haunt us.
One of the strongest “What were we thinking?” realizations is that most of us have closed our eyes. Simply closed our eyes as Satan brought forth one area of tolerance after another.
So, what do you see as God’s will for you in this virus? Maybe God is pointing out to us our need for a moral compass. Somewhere in these past years, we lost ours. Also, our spending habits might need a death and new life revival. Had we only known our income might be at risk through a virus, would our savings have been more important? Have our spending habits been over the top? Could we have said “no” to some of our newest possessions?
The solution should be fairly simple and yet decidedly difficult to carry out: Just open our eyes. Then, allow our disgust to move to our hearts, voice box, and hands. Speak out against injustice. Write letters to those in charge. And one more thing. Recognize who the enemy is. He is a very real, very alive, ruler of this world, and he is out to get you and your children. Don’t let him. “The one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4).
If you are a believer, then the power that created the world lives in you. Your enemy has already been defeated.
He just didn’t get the memo.
B.J. Funk is Good News’ long-time devotional columnist and author of It’s A Good Day for Grace.
by Steve | Mar 17, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Steve Beard –
Photo: Saint Patrick Catholic Church (Junction City, Ohio) – stained glass, Saint Patrick
While sifting through obscure Spanish colonial records, it was discovered a few years ago that the very first St. Patrick’s Day parade was not conducted in Boston, Chicago, nor New York City.
Instead, the Irish feast day was celebrated in modern day St. Augustine, Florida, in 1601.
“They processed through the streets of St. Augustine, and the cannon fired from the fort,” said Prof. J. Michael Francis of the University of South Florida at St. Petersburg, who discovered the document. The ancient records named “San Patricio” as “the protector” of the area’s maize fields. “So here you have this Irish saint who becomes the patron protector of a New World crop, corn, in a Spanish garrison settlement,” he said.
This strange twist in the story and celebration of St. Patrick, a fifth century holy man, is really not that surprising. Historians are constantly attempting to set the record straight. After all, Patrick was not Irish (born in Britain of a Romanized family). He was never canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church. Interestingly, there are two St. Patrick’s Cathedrals in Armagh, Ireland – one Catholic and one Protestant. Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin is part of the Church of Ireland – with both Catholic and Protestant clergy.
The legacy of Ireland’s patron saint blurs a lot of lines – but, he is notably worth celebrating.
Patrick was brutally abducted at the age of 16 by pirates and sold as a slave in Ireland. For six agonizing years in a foreign land, he largely lived in abject solitude attending animals. The Christian faith of his family that he found unappealing as a teenager became his spiritual lifeline to sanity and survival while in captivity.
“Tending flocks was my daily work, and I would pray constantly during the daylight hours,” he writes in his Confession – one of only two brief documents authentically from Patrick’s own hand. “The love of God and the fear of him surrounded me more and more – and faith grew and the Spirit was roused, so that in one day I would say as many as a hundred prayers and after dark nearly as many again even while I remained in the woods or on the mountain. I would wake and pray before daybreak – through snow, frost, rain – nor was there any sluggishness in me (such as I experience nowadays) because then the Spirit within me was ardent.”
Through a divine dream, Patrick was inspired to make his escape. His journey as a fugitive was, according to his testimony, a 200 mile trek to the coast. Further miraculous circumstances allowed him to wrangle himself aboard a ship to escape his imprisonment in Ireland. He finally made it back to the loving embrace of his family.
Years later, however, another mystical dream launched his trajectory into the ministry and, ultimately, back to Ireland. “We appeal to you, holy servant boy,” said the voice in the dream, “to come and walk among us.”
For many years, he trained to become a priest. Eventually, in 432 A.D., Patrick returned to the shores of the land where he once was held captive.
“Believe me, I didn’t go to Ireland willingly that first time [when he was taken as a slave] – I almost died there,” he wrote in his Confession. “But it turned out to be good for me in the end, because God used the time to shape and mold me into something better. He made me into what I am now – someone very different from what I once was, someone who can care for others and work to help them. Before I was a slave, I didn’t even care about myself.”
Noted classics scholar Philip Freeman, author of St Patrick of Ireland, points out the distinguished uniqueness of Patrick’s public vulnerability – a trait that was not characteristic of a man of his stature and notoriety. As an elderly and well-known bishop, Patrick begins his Confession with these words: “I am Patrick – a sinner – the most unsophisticated and unworthy among all the faithful of God. Indeed, to many, I am the most despised.”
“The two letters are in fact the earliest surviving documents written in Ireland and provide us with glimpses of a world full of petty kings, pagan gods, quarreling bishops, brutal slavery, beautiful virgins, and ever-threatening violence,” writes Freeman. “But more than anything else, they allow us to look inside the mind and soul of a remarkable man living in a world that was both falling apart and at the dawn of a new age. There are simply no other documents from ancient times that give us such a clear and heartfelt view of a person’s thoughts and feelings. These are, above all else, letters of hope in a trying and uncertain time.”
While there are many beautiful, miraculous, and fantastical stories about St. Patrick, his Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus – the other document authentically written by Patrick – exposes his heart and soul. It portrays the character of a man worthy of emulation and celebration. His humility, empathy, and righteous indignation scorches the letter as he takes up the cause of the voiceless captives and powerless victims of slavery – a common practice in the fifth century.
The fiery correspondence addresses the horrific news that a group of newly baptized converts were killed or taken into slavery on their way home by a petty British king named Coroticus, known to be at least nominally a Christian.
“Blood, blood, blood! Your hands drip with the blood of the innocent Christians you have murdered – the very Christians I nourished and brought to God,” Patrick writes. “My newly baptized converts, still in their white robes, the sweet smell of the anointing oil still on their foreheads – you murdered them, cut them down with your swords!”
Violating cultural and ecclesiastical protocols, the letter was sent broadly and caused a stir. Courageously, Patrick launched a public ruckus – outside his governance – over the “hideous, unspeakable crimes” because he believed that God truly loved the Irish – even if church leaders elsewhere did not. Patrick’s vision for the love of God was expansively generous. “I am a stranger and an exile living among barbarians and pagans, because God cares for them,” he writes (emphasis added).
“Was it my idea to feel God’s love for the Irish and to work for their good?” Patrick writes. “These people enslaved me and devastated my father’s household! I am of noble birth – the son of a Roman decurion – but I sold my nobility. I’m not ashamed of it and I don’t regret it because I did it to help others. Now I am a slave of Christ to a foreign people – but this time for the unspeakable glory of eternal life in Christ Jesus our master.”
Having been captive, he does not write about slavery whimsically. He was an outspoken voice opposing slavery at a time when it was simply considered commonplace. Furthermore, he was a fierce advocate for those who were most vulnerable and abused in captivity.
“But it is the women kept in slavery who suffer the most – and who keep their spirits up despite the menacing and terrorizing they must endure,” he writes in his Confession. “The Lord gives grace to his many handmaids; and though they are forbidden to do so, they follow him with backbone.”
When Patrick heard about the bloody attack and abductions after the baptism service, he sought to reason with Coroticus: “The very next day I sent a message to you with a priest l had taught from childhood and some other clergy asking that you return the surviving captives with at least some of their goods – but you only laughed.”
In response, Patrick derides Coroticus and his men as “dogs and sorcerers and murderers, and liars and false swearers … who distribute baptized girls for a price, and that for the sake of a miserable temporal kingdom which truly passes away in a moment like a cloud or smoke that is scattered by the wind.”
In order to make his point, he prays: “God, I know these horrible actions break your heart – even those dwelling in Hell would blush in shame.”
With pastoral care, Patrick addresses the memory of those killed after their baptism: “And those of my children who were murdered – I weep for you, I weep for you … I can see you now starting on your journey to that place where there is no more sorrow or death. … You will rule with the apostles, prophets, and martyrs in an eternal kingdom.”
Even in an inferno of justifiable rage, Patrick extends an olive branch of redemption: “Perhaps then, even though late, they will repent of all the evil they have done – these murderers of God’s family – and free the Christians they have enslaved. Perhaps then they will deserve to be redeemed and live with God now and forever.”
“The greatness of Patrick is beyond dispute: the first human being in the history of the world to speak out unequivocally against slavery,” writes historian Thomas Cahill, author of How the Irish Saved Civilization. “Nor will any voice as strong as his be heard again till the seventeenth century.”
All around the globe, March 17 is set aside to honor a great man who overcame fear with faith, overcame hate with love, and overcame prejudice with hope. Although he had every reason in the world to resist the dream to return to “walk among” the Irish, Patrick responded to the God-given impulse of his heart – even when it was most difficult. He knew the dangers and challenges and returned anyway.
Patrick offered himself as a living example of what new life could look like for the Irish. “It is possible to be brave – to expect ‘every day … to be murdered, betrayed, enslaved – whatever may come my way’ – and yet be a man of peace and at peace, a man without sword or desire to harm, a man in whom the sharp fear of death has been smoothed away,” writes Cahill of Patrick. “He was ‘not afraid of any of these things, because of the promises of heaven; for I have put myself in the hands of God Almighty.’ Patrick’s peace was no sham: it issued from his person like a fragrance.”
Happy St. Patrick’s Day.
Steve Beard is the editor of Good News.
by Steve | Mar 12, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
The Book of Discipline. A UMNS photo by Mike DuBose.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
There are two proposals that would change United Methodism by creating different regional versions in the various geographical areas of the church: Africa, Europe, the Philippines, and the U.S. One proposal is from the Connectional Table and the other is from a group of delegates from outside the U.S. called the Christmas Covenant.
I have written about the Christmas Covenant before in more detail. At present, the Christmas Covenant seems to be the version of regionalization most preferred by church leaders. It sets up the UM Church in the U.S. as its own regional conference and creates regional conferences in Africa, Europe, and the Philippines. Each regional conference (including in the U.S.) would have the ability to change any part of the denomination’s Book of Discipline that it wants to change, except for items that the church Constitution protects or items that are protected by a two-thirds vote of the General Conference.
There could be different standards for clergy in each regional conference, different requirements to which clergy and bishops would be held accountable, different methods of local church organization, and different criteria for church membership, to give just a few examples. Each regional conference would create a different version of United Methodism for that geographical area. Regional conferences could even give annual conferences the ability to create different standards and requirements, as well.
Proponents of regionalization say that the reason for this proposal is to allow United Methodism to adapt to the different ministry contexts found in each geographical area of the world. They say that a one-size-fits-all version of Methodism does not work. In addition, proponents state that central conference delegates are tired of dealing with reams of petitions at General Conference that pertain only to United Methodists in the U.S. They want to focus on global matters at General Conference and allow each region to work independently on matters germane to that region.
Importantly, some proponents insist that regionalization is not an attempt to resolve the church’s conflict over human sexuality, marriage, and ordination. Some contend that regionalization can be adopted along with the Protocol for Separation to resolve our conflict.
However, some proponents and other church leaders have seized on the idea that, if regionalization is adopted, separation would no longer be necessary, since each region in the church could adopt its own standards regarding sexuality, marriage, and ordination. Such an understanding fails to take into account the real dimensions of our church conflict.
Regionalization for the U.S.
First, it is important to understand that regionalization proposals would primarily benefit United Methodists in the U.S. Those in the central conferences outside the U.S. already have the power to change and adapt the provisions of the Book of Discipline to fit their ministry and legal context. The 2016 General Conference even moved in the direction of expanding that ability to adapt the Discipline. In light of the crisis point in our conflict, that expansion was put on hold but could easily be taken up again in the future.
U.S. United Methodists were not originally given the power to adapt provisions of the Discipline for two reasons. First, U.S. delegates were always in the overwhelming majority and still make up about 55 percent of the delegates. Second, there is no one unified U.S. conference, as the country is divided up into five jurisdictions. Giving each jurisdiction the authority to adapt the Discipline was seen as a bridge too far, creating too much diversity within one country. Besides, U.S. delegates were essentially writing the Discipline for their context, while giving non-U.S. United Methodists the ability to change what did not work in their settings. Giving the U.S. church the ability to adapt was unnecessary.
But things have changed and are changing. The U.S. percentage of the General Conference is at its lowest point ever. As Methodism in the U.S. continues to decline dramatically and Methodism in Africa continues to grow significantly, within eight to twelve years, U.S. delegates could be in the minority.
On top of that, the two-thirds of U.S. delegates that are centrists or progressives are being outvoted by the one-third of U.S. delegates that are traditionalists, along with traditionalists in Africa, Eurasia, and the Philippines. If the U.S. voted separately from the rest of the church, the centrists and progressives would overwhelmingly control the direction of the church in the U.S. But the voices of delegates outside the U.S., along with U.S. traditionalists, are setting the agenda for the global church. U.S. centrists and progressives disagree with that traditionalist agenda and can use regionalization to resist it.
Regionalization’s Impact on Marriage and Ordination
If the U.S. church is given the power to adapt the Discipline that the central conferences currently have, and if that power is expanded to cover more parts of the Discipline (as the Christmas Covenant envisions), the situation would change dramatically. The global definition of marriage as between one man and one woman could be changed to allow for same-sex marriage in the U.S. church. The global requirement that all clergy should be celibate in singleness or faithful in a heterosexual marriage could be changed to delete the word “heterosexual,” or the requirement for celibacy and faithfulness could be struck out altogether in the U.S. (as at least one petition to the 2020 General Conference proposes). The provision barring clergy from performing same-sex weddings could be removed in the U.S. The chargeable offenses holding clergy accountable on these matters could be scrapped in the U.S.
While some proponents of regionalization may see it primarily as a way to free General Conference from having to deal with matters strictly pertaining to the U.S., it would also allow the U.S. church to shift in a much more progressive direction. This progressive shift would affect not only the U.S. church’s teachings and standards on marriage and ordination; it would also affect how the church’s doctrinal standards are interpreted and what social or political statements the U.S. church would make on matters of public interest. One could expect the U.S. church to espouse more progressive politics than it currently does.
Regionalization vs. Separation
Traditionalists would not object to this kind of regionalization for the U.S. church after separation occurs. After all, many traditionalists would not remain in the UM Church after separation and would therefore have no standing to determine how the UM Church is governed after separation. In fact, the Protocol for Separation envisions “The Council of Bishops will call the first session of the General Conference of the post-separation United Methodist Church to organize itself and, if such legislation has not been passed, consider matters pertaining to the Regional Conference plan.”
However, traditionalists would strenuously object to regionalization as a substitute for separation.
The key point to remember is that our church’s conflict is not geographical, and a geographical solution does not resolve the conflict. That was the fatal flaw of the One Church Plan rejected by the 2019 General Conference.
There are traditionalist congregations and clergy in every annual conference in the U.S. and Western Europe, which regions might be expected to go progressive. There are progressive congregations and clergy in the Philippines and parts of Africa, which might be expected to go traditional. Allowing regionalization without a fair and practical exit path for congregations would simply exacerbate the conflict within these regions.
Creating the U.S. as a separate region of the church without allowing for separation would simply trap traditionalists in a centrist/progressive church, with no real recourse to withdraw, other than to leave behind buildings and assets. (The current exit path adopted by the 2019 General Conference is too expensive for most congregations, requiring seven to twelve years’ worth of apportionments as the fee to keep their buildings.) Under such a scenario, traditionalists are afraid that they would eventually be forced out of the church by the centrist/progressive conference leadership, so that the conference could keep the congregation’s building and assets to support the conference’s dwindling finances.
Some proponents of regionalization maintain that, while the U.S. church would change its stance on marriage and ordination, it would continue to welcome traditionalists to remain in the church. However, such hospitality could not be guaranteed. The Episcopal Church in the U.S. started out welcoming traditionalists to remain in that church after it changed its teachings, but now it appears that all parts of the church are expected to allow same-sex marriage and ordination of practicing LGBT persons, and its last traditionalist bishop has just resigned. If affirming same-sex relationships is truly a justice issue, which is how most centrists and progressives see it, they could not allow what they view as “discrimination” to continue indefinitely. Sooner or later, they would have to require same-sex marriage and ordination in all parts of the U.S. church.
Even now, given the way the election of jurisdictional delegates took place in 2019, there is no jurisdiction in the U.S. that is likely to elect a traditionalist bishop in the foreseeable future. Many progressive annual conferences refuse to ordain traditionalists as clergy. The track record of hospitality to traditionalists in progressive areas is not reassuring.
The regionalization plans, whether it is the Christmas Covenant or the Connectional Table Plan, should not be seen as a substitute for separation. Amicable separation is the only pathway that would truly end the church’s conflict and allow freedom of conscience on the part of all clergy and congregations, whether centrist, progressive, or traditionalist. General Conference delegates should defeat any attempt to enact regionalization without also enacting the Protocol for Separation.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Mar 8, 2021 | Home Page Hero Slider, Magazine, Magazine Articles, March-April 2021
By Walter Fenton –
The Transitional Leadership Council, a 17 member team of theologically conservative Methodists, has released information on the formation of the new Global Methodist Church. The council said the new church will officially come into existence when a United Methodist General Conference adopts the implementing legislation for the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. Alternatively, if it becomes apparent that the leading bishops, centrists, and progressives who covenanted to support the Protocol no longer do so, then the council will consider bringing the new church into existence without delay.
“The primary mission of the Global Methodist Church will be to make disciples of Jesus Christ who worship passionately, love extravagantly, and witness boldly,” said the Rev. Keith Boyette, who serves as chairman of the Transitional Leadership Council. “Over the past year the council members, and hundreds of people who have informed their work, have faithfully and thoughtfully arrived at this point.”
With the announcement of the new church the council authorized the release of a comprehensive and detailed website (globalmethodist.org). It includes the new church’s mission statement, vision, information about its name and logo, a frequently asked questions section, and downloadable versions of the church’s Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline in English, French, Korean, Portuguese, and Spanish. The website clearly notes that “the Global Methodist Church is in formation” and will not officially launch until the Protocol is approved.
“It was a great honor to participate in such exhilarating work,” said the Rev. Philippe Adjobi, a member of the Transitional Leadership Council, a district superintendent in the Cote d’Ivoire Annual Conference and a General Conference delegate. “I believe the Global Methodist Church will fulfill the expectations and aspirations of local churches throughout Africa. They will appreciate focusing on what is essential: testifying to Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.”
Adjobi and the names of the other 16 members of the council – men and women from Africa, Eurasia, the Philippines, and the United States – are listed on the Global Methodist Church’s website. The list includes laity, clergy, and bishops who believe an amicable and orderly separation is the best way forward.
The special General Conference in 2019 proved to be as contentious and divisive as many people anticipated when a Traditional Plan reaffirming the UM Church’s sexual ethics, teachings on marriage, and ordination standards was approved. Progressive and centrist United Methodists in the U.S. denounced the General Conference’s actions and resolved to defy the global body vested with the sole power to speak authoritatively for the UM Church.
Within weeks, small groups of centrist, progressive, and traditionalist UM Church leaders, quietly and often haltingly began having conversations about plans for dividing the denomination. A group convened by the late Bishop John Yambasu of Sierre Leone and guided by the world renown mediator Kenneth Feinberg hammered out the Protocol and its implementing legislation. The 16 member team included leading UM bishops and representatives from the major advocacy groups representing centrists, progressives, and conservatives.
The Protocol team released its plan in early January 2020 and it quickly gained the sometimes hopeful and sometimes grudging support of United Methodists around the world. It appeared headed for likely passage at the denomination’s May 2020 General Conference.
In light of the Protocol, a group of theologically conservative UM Church leaders met in Atlanta in March 2020. The group included several traditionalist bishops, evangelical advocacy group leaders, and other clergy and laity who identified as theologically conservative. During their meeting, they nominated the members of the Transitional Leadership Council, assigning them the task of forming the new church.
“I am convinced the Global Methodist Church will be a vibrant, vital expression of Methodism in terms of its teachings and ethics,” said Dr. Bob Hayes, a Transitional Leadership Council member and Bishop in Residence at The Woodlands United Methodist Church in The Woodlands, Texas. “As a fourth generation Methodist I am excited by a fresh wind of the Holy Spirit where I see God doing a new thing! God is creating a church rooted in Scripture and the love of Jesus, and he is calling us to participate with him.”
At the time of the Transitional Leadership Council’s formation, no one knew the Covid-19 pandemic would result in the postponement of the UM Church’s 2020 General Conference. Despite the postponement of an in-person General Conference, the Transitional Leadership Council has been meeting almost weekly since March 2020. As is evident in its Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, the council has approved the Global Methodist Church’s core confessions of faith, hammered out a transitional governing structure, and adopted the new church’s name and logo. The council has emphasized fidelity to the historic teaching of the Christian faith, and a desire to be a truly global church.
“I believe a good number of ethnic congregations will want to align with the Global Methodist Church,” said the Rev. Kevin Ryoo, a council member and an elder in the Dakotas Annual Conference. “They long for a church which honors the Bible, stays within the traditional mission of Methodism, and keeps local church ministry as a first priority. I know Korean Methodist congregations have a strong passion for evangelism and mission.”
Boyette, who is the president of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, acknowledged that while the association has played a role in preparing for the new church, many other traditionalist leaders have been critical in the formation of the Global Methodist Church.
“Traditionalists do not march in lock-step,” said Dr. Leah Hidde Gregory, a Transitional Leadership Council member and a district superintendent in the Central Texas Annual Conference. “Some traditionalists have been wary of the WCA, thinking it was moving too fast and others believing it was moving too slow. It took a few meetings before I realized there were only three people from the WCA leadership on our council. It became obvious to me that the group who nominated us wanted to make sure all people who regard themselves as traditionalist, orthodox, conservative, or evangelical were represented on the Transitional Leadership Council.”
In the “Frequently Asked Questions” section of its website the new church states, “Women, like men, will be called to serve in the Global Methodist Church and will be entitled to serve at all levels.” The section also says, “As a truly global church the denomination will be ethnically and racially diverse and will insist on the equal treatment of all the church’s members.”
“I believe Methodism is on the cusp of another Great Awakening,” said Transitional Leadership Council member Cara Nicklas, an attorney and General Conference delegate from the Oklahoma Annual Conference. “The Global Methodist Church is the vehicle by which that will happen because we value a connectional, global church with doctrine and discipline that is not guided by our U.S. culture but is simply focused on bringing people into a deep and intimate relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
Walter Fenton is Vice President for Strategic Engagement for the Wesleyan Covenant Association and an elder in the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference.
by Steve | Mar 8, 2021 | Home Page Hero Slider, Magazine, Magazine Articles, March-April 2021
Members of a diverse group of bishops and other United Methodist leaders after reaching agreement on a proposal that would maintain The United Methodist Church but allow traditionalist congregations to separate into a new denomination. Photo courtesy of the Mediation Team.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
On February 25, the Commission on the General Conference announced that the 2020 General Conference – postponed once until August 29, 2021 – has now been postponed again until August 29, 2022. On the same day, the Council of Bishops announced it is calling a special session of the General Conference to meet virtually on May 8, 2021, to address technical issues that would allow the church to continue operating until the full General Conference can meet.
Notably, the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation is not currently on the agenda for the special virtual General Conference.
No Regular General Conference. The Commission made the expected decision that an in-person General Conference could not take place in 2021, due to the travel restrictions in place now and expected to remain in place for the foreseeable future. Travel by delegates from outside the U.S. – fully 40 percent – to attend General Conference will likely still be impossible throughout 2021.
A Technology Study Team met during January to consider the possibility of a virtual General Conference. After extensive research and conversations with representatives of the church outside the U.S., the team concluded that a virtual General Conference, even with a limited agenda, would not be possible because of issues related to time zones, reliable electricity and Internet service, travel restrictions, and the integrity of the voting process.
As one who promoted the viability of a virtual General Conference, reading the report of the Technology Study Team convinced me that it is not feasible with current technology during a pandemic. This decision is disappointing, and the situation is frustrating, but it was the right call.
The Special Session. The Council of Bishops proposes that the special session gather on May 8 for an extremely limited agenda. The first task would be to secure a quorum, in order for the special session to take action. In light of the above considerations, it is unlikely that more than a scattered few delegates from Africa or the Philippines could attend. It must be acknowledged that, despite the high value on universal participation by all delegates, this special session will mainly include U.S. and European delegates who have access to Internet technology. But this situation is unavoidable in trying to get some of the church’s administrative processes unstuck.
With the knowledge that many delegates could not participate in a deliberative General Conference, the Council of Bishops has limited the proposed agenda to twelve administrative items that it considers non-controversial. The virtual General Conference will also act to allow the voting to be done by paper ballots that would be compiled by mail and the results announced on July 13, 2021. The paper ballots would not allow any amendments to the above legislation. Delegates would simply vote yes or no. Although not all delegates could participate in the virtual General Conference, all 862 delegates could cast paper ballots on the proposed legislation.
What about the Protocol? Although the proposed agenda for the virtual special session of General Conference does not include the Protocol, the decision about separation requires urgent resolution. Many of the other decisions, such as the budget and the number of bishops to elect, depend upon how many churches and annual conferences will remain in the UM Church after separation. It would be better to make the decision regarding separation before needing to make all these other decisions. It is in no one’s best interest to prolong this decision. Deciding now would enable the UM Church and the new traditionalist denomination to begin moving ahead in ministry as we come out of the pandemic. Many are ready to act, and deciding now would open the door for churches that are ready to go in a new direction.
It is in the best interest of centrists and progressives that General Conference make a decision now regarding the Protocol. Once traditionalists start moving to a new denomination, it would allow centrists and progressives free rein to change the church’s position on marriage, sexual ethics, and other isssues at the 2022 General Conference.
The need to offer amendments to the Protocol is not essential. The mediation team negotiated the major terms of the Protocol based on compromise and give-and-take. Changing any of those major terms could jeopardize the carefully balanced agreement and throw the adoption of the Protocol into question. It would be better to adopt the Protocol as negotiated, with the implementation dates extended by one year, which would be possible under the plan of the special virtual session. The Council of Bishops could amend the call for the special session to include the Protocol. If not, the delegates – with a two-thirds vote – could add the Protocol to the agenda of items to be dealt with by the special session.
Hope for the Future. Meanwhile, the Protocol mediation team needs to provide leadership in continuing its support and promotion of the Protocol. The Reconciling Ministries Network and the Western Jurisdiction and its progressive bishops have recently reiterated their support for the Protocol, as has a broad group of traditionalists. With support across the spectrum, including from bishops, the Protocol can move forward as a positive way to amicably resolve the decades-long conflict in the UM Church. Freed from conflict, both groups could wholeheartedly pursue ministry according to their mission and convictions.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
