General Conference Postponed Again

by Steve | Mar 1, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Thomas Lambrecht –

On Thursday, 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. At the same time, 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.

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. to attend General Conference will likely still be impossible throughout 2021. Those delegates make up 40 percent of the General Conference, and it would be inappropriate to meet without them.

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. Some of the reasons for this conclusion are:

• The technology for linking different parts of the world would only accommodate six to ten sites, meaning that delegates would need to gather in central locations in groups of 50 to 100. Due to travel restrictions, both inside and outside the U.S., such travel appears unlikely or impossible.
• Some of the sites for gathering outside the U.S. do not have reliable electricity and Internet service, meaning that particular sites might not be available at the time the General Conference is supposed to meet during the day, and their ability to interact could be severely compromised. Travel restrictions limit the ability of technical teams from the U.S. to travel to the sites to set up the required technology. It would not be ethical for the General Conference to meet if not all delegates have equal ability to contribute their voice and participate in holy conferencing.
• In the wake of problems at the 2019 General Conference with improper voting, there needs to be a way to assure the identity of delegates and reserve delegates in order to assure the integrity of the process. This can only be effectively assured by the presence of trained staff and volunteers from the Commission. Travel restrictions would inhibit the ability of staff and volunteers to attend the sites outside the U.S.
• Concerns have been expressed about undue influence being exerted on delegates to vote certain ways. The only way to mitigate against that is for neutral observers to be present, which is again inhibited by the travel restrictions.

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 I believe 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. These agenda items provide for:

• Correcting the accountability process in response to a Judicial Council ruling invalidating the entire administrative process for dealing with ineffective clergy
• Allowing the General Conference and central conferences in extraordinary circumstances to be held electronically (Note that jurisdictional conferences are not given the same explicit ability to meet electronically, although the bishops’ press release envisions a virtual jurisdictional conference this summer to act on the retirement of bishops and determine new episcopal areas.)
• Allowing the central conferences to meet during the last half of 2021 to determine whether or not to elect bishops this quadrennium to replace those who are retiring (It is unclear whether actual elections would take place then or at an in-person central conference meeting held following the 2022 General Conference. As of now, it appears that the five additional bishops for Africa promised in 2016 are off the table until at least 2022.)
• Providing that bishops who reach age 72 are automatically retired and allowing younger bishops to retire at their request, rather than having to wait until a jurisdictional or central conference meets to vote on their retirement
• Providing that, if the General Conference cannot meet as scheduled, the budget for the previous quadrennium will be extended until such meeting can occur
• Allowing annual conferences to elect quadrennial officers if the General Conference cannot meet as scheduled

The virtual General Conference will also vote to allow the voting on the above items 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?

The agenda for the virtual special session of General Conference does not include the Protocol to allow for separation in the UM Church. Some have said that such a decision is too important to be made when we are not together in the same room. Further, the items on the special session agenda could not be amended, and some have said they want to make amendments to the Protocol.

However, 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 United Methodist 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. The Protocol has been discussed publicly for over a year, so the delegates are well aware of what it contains.

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 and sexual ethics, as well as enact new structures of regionalization at the 2022 General Conference. If the decision on separation is postponed to 2022, it is likely that these other changes will have to wait until 2024.

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, but they are unlikely to do so. By a two-thirds vote, the delegates could add the Protocol to the agenda of items to be dealt with by the special session. Coming weeks will show if this is a viable option.

Hope for the Future

Meanwhile, we look to the Protocol mediation team 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 the Atlanta 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.

Whether the decision is made in May or next year, we believe an amicable separation will release the church to be what its members determine. Freed from conflict, both groups could wholeheartedly pursue ministry according to their mission and identity. They could focus their energy on mission, and no longer be distracted by conflict.

Over the past year, we have been learning to endure and persevere. Yes, it is tiring, hard work. It is discouraging at times to see the goal line shift farther into the future, whether we are thinking about the pandemic or the future of the church. The promise remains that God is with us and will never leave or forsake us.

Be patient, then, brothers and sisters, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits to see the land yield its valuable crop, patiently waiting for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near (James 5:7-8).

Patient endurance is our calling in this moment. As we see what God unfolds in our lives and the life of our church, we put our faith and trust in him. With Jeremiah, we are confident that God has “plans to prosper [us] and not to harm [us], plans to give [us] hope and a future” (Jeremiah 29:11). We can stand firm on that promise and the Lord’s matchless presence at all times. “Do not be afraid. Stand firm, and you will see the deliverance the Lord will bring you today” (Exodus 14:13).

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.

Approaching Separation: A Rejoinder to Adam Hamilton

by Steve | Feb 19, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Thomas Lambrecht –

I recently expounded the primary reasons I see for separation taking place in The United Methodist Church. That article drew the response of the Rev. Adam Hamilton, who felt that my characterization of centrist and progressive understandings was not an accurate description.

I respect Adam and the vibrant ministry he has led at Church of the Resurrection. I have used some of his Bible study materials and found them helpful. His views on Scripture have appeared to evolve over time, however, and some statements in his 2014 book Making Sense of the Bible seem to reflect an approach to Scripture at odds with that of most traditional Methodists. In this article, I would like to delve a bit deeper into our differences.

The Primacy of Scripture

I focus on the traditionalist/evangelical understanding of Scripture as the primary authority for what we are to believe and teach as Methodist Christians. In his response to my article, Hamilton writes, “nearly every United Methodist I know believes … that Scripture is primary in determining what we believe, and tradition, reason, and experience are secondary.” He elaborates, “I do not know anyone who sees tradition, experience, and reason as equal to Scripture.”

An interesting survey of United Methodist members in 2018 done by United Methodist Communications asked the question, “What is the most authoritative source of your personal theology?” Scripture was identified as the number one source by 6 percent of self-identified progressives/liberals, 25 percent of moderates/centrists, and 41 percent of conservatives/traditionalists. In fact, Scripture was identified as the number three source of theology, after reason and tradition, by moderates/centrists. And for progressives, Scripture was the least important source of theology.

Granted, the subjects of the study were laity, not clergy. But it appears that there is a distinct difference in approaching Scripture between progressives, centrists, and traditionalists in general. I have to believe that at least some of this difference is due to their pastors, who reflected that difference of approach in their teaching and preaching.

A glaring example of that approach is the clergy delegate at a General Conference years ago who stood up on the floor of conference and said, “We don’t go back to the Bible for the last word on anything.” There may be more people in the church than Hamilton realizes who hold a different view of Scripture, for whom Scripture is not primary in guiding our beliefs and actions.

Hamilton’s statement of his beliefs about the Bible’s inspiration demonstrates the difference between a centrist understanding of Scripture and that of a traditionalist. “Divine influence on the writers [of Scripture] was not qualitatively different from the way God inspires or influences [people] by the Spirit today,” Hamilton writes. “The difference between biblical texts and some contemporary writings also influenced by the Spirit is that the biblical authors lived closer to the events of which they wrote. … This view allows us to value the Bible, to hear God speaking through it, yet … to recognize that some things taught in scripture may not represent God’s character nor his will for us today, and perhaps never accurately captured God’s will” (Making Sense of the Bible, p. 143).

By contrast, most traditionalists believe the Bible is “God-breathed,” which is why we can receive it as “the true rule and guide for faith and practice” (Confession of Faith, Article IV). If all Scripture is not God-breathed, but only some parts of it, how can we view it as our true rule and guide? This morphs over very easily into making ourselves and our own ideas the true rule and guide, since it is we who decide which parts of Scripture to regard as authoritative. If something in Scripture does not make sense to us or does not fit our cultural perspective, we can too easily discard it as one of those “not inspired” parts, rather than allowing Scripture to correct our understanding or cultural myopia.

Scripture and Culture

In my article, it was my contention that many centrists and progressives believe, “when modern knowledge contradicts our understanding of Scripture, we must change our understanding of Scripture. … Human knowledge and understandings are more important than any long-standing perception of what Scripture teaches.” This is seen among those who have changed their understanding of Scripture’s teaching on marriage and sexuality due to recent cultural shifts.

In reply, Adam names a number of illustrations where he claims new knowledge and a changing cultural perspective have altered the church’s interpretation of Scripture.

Hamilton puts forward the narrative that many preachers in the 1800’s promoted slavery as consistent with, if not commanded by, Scripture. It was only as American society came to reject slavery that such an interpretation became untenable. Tragically, however, the legacy of slavery is still with us in Jim Crow attitudes and racist practices among some in our society even today. So, I do not think we can regard the “progress” of society as the source for a changed view of slavery.

Historically, the progression was just the opposite. The early Methodists in England and America were adamantly against slavery. The early Book of Discipline forbade Methodists from owning slaves. However, as the church began to grow after the Revolutionary War, southern Methodists complained that the church’s stance on slavery was hurting their ability to evangelize among the slave-holding population. Because of this cultural influence, the church’s stance on slavery was weakened, and it was eventually not enforced in southern states. It was when the northern annual conferences wanted to enforce the slavery prohibition against a particular slave-owning bishop that the southern Methodists rebelled and forced a schism in the church in 1844. They removed the prohibition against owning slaves from their Discipline and rationalized that slavery (and, in some cases after the Civil War, racism) was God’s will.

Accommodation to a slave-owning and racist culture caused the church’s interpretation to change in a negative way. That is what we see happening today with the changing definition of marriage and affirmation of same-sex relationships.

The same could be said about women in leadership in the church. There are prominent examples of female leaders in the Bible, as well as in early Methodism. Not least among those examples was John and Charles Wesley’s own mother Susannah, who was in many ways a co-pastor with her husband. There were women leaders in early American Methodism, as well. Yet after its explosive growth on the frontier, the church failed to adjust its practice in line with its understanding of Scripture, and instead allowed the desire for social respectability to limit the leadership of women in the church. It was actually a return to its former understanding of the priesthood of all believers that enabled first the Evangelicals and United Brethren, and finally the Methodists to recover the equal role of women in leadership.

Here again, our society is not a stellar example of women’s equality, what with the gender pay gap and the paucity of female business and political leaders. It is just as fair to say that churches like the UM Church are leading society in this regard, rather than being influenced by society in our understanding of Scripture.

Truth and Identity

Adam questions my claim that “most centrists and progressives reject the idea of absolute truth.” However, that is not what I claimed. The actual quote is, “Most centrists and progressives value self-determination as the deciding factor in one’s view of oneself.” I say this is connected to the idea that “truth is defined by each person for themselves.”

I am heartened to hear Hamilton’s assessment that “Most United Methodists … would agree that God is absolute Truth, that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. And that Scripture bears witness to God’s truth.” I would say that Scripture does more than bear witness to God’s truth – it reveals and teaches God’s truth. Aside from that quibble, I can affirm Adam’s quote.

However, I have not found that to be universally true in my interaction with United Methodist clergy. Some of my colleagues do not believe the doctrines we are “required” to believe in our doctrinal standards, particularly the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith. Some believe that everyone will go to heaven. Some believe Jesus did not need to die on the cross for our salvation. Some believe Jesus did not physically rise from the dead. There is not the universal agreement on the outworking of Adam’s quote above that he might think there is.

There are no better illustrations of people operating by their own “truth” than the One Church Plan, the Connectional Conference Plan, and the Christmas Covenant. Each of these plans envisions part of the church living by one truth, that the practice of homosexuality is contrary to God’s will. Another part of the same church would be living by another truth, that God affirms the practice of homosexuality. It is the ultimate example of self-defining truth attempting to coexist in one church body. The result is confusion and the loss of identity as to what it means to be a United Methodist Christian.

A Social Justice Agenda

Of course, Hamilton is right that we should “be unapologetic in pursuit of [social] justice.” The question is a matter of priorities.

The survey I cited earlier asked the question, “Which should be the primary focus of The United Methodist Church?” 68 percent of self-identified progressives/liberals said, “Advocating for social justice to transform this world.” Meanwhile, 68 percent of moderates/centrists and 88 percent of evangelicals/traditionalists said “saving souls for Jesus Christ.” Here, the demarcation is between progressives on the one hand and centrists and traditionalists on the other.

Most traditionalists perceive the denomination’s agenda as driven by the progressive “social justice” priority. Most of the general boards and agencies and most of the Council of Bishop statements have to do with issues of social justice. Aside from some good communication materials produced by UM Communications, most of the programs and resources produced by the general church have to do with social justice, with very little related to evangelism or discipleship.

More troubling to many conservative United Methodists is that often the positions promoted by the general church are in line with partisan policies advocated by one political party in the U.S. Politically conservative positions are not considered, and thus politically conservative United Methodists feel marginalized and even chastised by their church.

I agree with Adam that, “we are to live the gospel, doing justice, practicing kindness, being the hands and feet of Christ in addressing the brokenness in our world.” But we cannot live the gospel if we never hear the gospel, if we are never called to respond to the gospel call of Christ, or if we are never ushered into the lifelong discipleship of Jesus. I know these things are present in Hamilton’s ministry at Church of the Resurrection, but they are often missing from many congregations across our church and from the leadership of the general church.

Breakdown of the Church’s Governance

In my original post, I state, “When significant portions of the church refuse to abide by that church’s governance processes, the church’s unity is no longer viable. Ordained clergy vow to abide by the church’s tenets, even when we disagree, but many now are renouncing that vow by their actions and words.” Adam acknowledges this point, but has no answer for it.

Many traditionalists are outraged that the consistent and continual will of the General Conference quadrennium after quadrennium can be summarily ignored and set aside by some bishops, clergy, and annual conference boards of ordained ministry who disagree with the outcome.

My colleague, the Rev. Forbes Matonga of Zimbabwe, put it well when he said, “Africans expected to see their American counterparts who are generally perceived as champions of constitutionalism and democracy to show them by example how democratic institutions and systems work. This was a massive let down. We began to be taught new lessons, that minority voices override majority vote. That when you don’t have it your way then you make the institution ungovernable. That you only follow the law when it is in sync with your cultural beliefs.”

For traditionalists, this last straw breaks the camel’s back. We could and did abide differences of opinion and belief for 40 years in the UM Church. But when widespread schism through disobedience to the order and discipline of the church began, it became apparent that we could not all go on together as part of one church body.

I appreciate the opportunity to exchange views with Adam Hamilton. It clarifies our understanding of each other. As we approach the possibility of separation within The United Methodist Church, clarity of communication and understanding will be important. It is our contention that after 50 years of conflict over the issues above, it is time to go our separate ways. Each person and each congregation will have an opportunity to decide what their beliefs and direction will be. As we prayerfully make these decisions, our goal is that we separate amicably, blessing one another, and allow each group to pursue its ministry in the way it feels led by God to do so. There is no benefit to continuing a conflict that only detracts from our church’s focus on mission and ministry.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.

The Case for a Virtual General Conference, Part 2

by Steve | Feb 15, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Thomas Lambrecht –

Global Time Zones.

In last week’s Perspective, I outlined why an in-person General Conference in 2021 is unlikely to occur as scheduled. The virulence of the Coronavirus pandemic and the slow rollout of vaccines to the global population make a return of international travel unlikely before mid-2022.

I also made the case that some type of General Conference must occur in order to deal with the budget, set the apportionment formula, and elect members to the Judicial Council and other bodies. I also suggested the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation needs to be enacted this year to avoid the splintering of the denomination and potentially expensive litigation by congregations and annual conferences.

Moving forward with separation is a prerequisite for making other decisions about the post-separation United Methodist Church, including the Christmas Covenant idea that regionalizes church governance. Individuals with a long-term commitment to The United Methodist Church need to make those decisions.

The most likely scenario for General Conference is that it will be held virtually with a limited agenda. This is how almost all annual conferences met in 2020, particularly in the U.S. and Europe. With a limited agenda, it could operate like the 2019 General Conference, as a committee of the whole without breaking up into legislative committees. Petitions not included in the limited agenda could be tabled or referred to the next in-person General Conference.

In this article, I examine how a virtual meeting could happen and some of the obstacles we would need to overcome.

A Distributed General Conference

The most realistic way a virtual General Conference could take place is through what missiologist David Scott called a distributed General Conference. This would involve delegates gathering in regional groups to participate together in a global virtual General Conference. Regional gatherings are the only practical way for delegates in Africa, the Philippines, and parts of Europe to have sufficient Internet access in order to participate. If these delegates need to gather regionally in order to participate, all the other delegates should do so as well, so everyone is treated equally and fairly.

Depending upon the travel situation with the pandemic and the availability of Internet access, delegates outside the U.S. could gather in episcopal areas (which sometimes include several annual conferences) or even in central conference groupings. In the U.S., delegates might gather by annual conference or several annual conferences could gather in one place.

Bishops could preside over these regional gatherings of delegates for the purpose of engaging the delegates in discussion, questions, and debate about particular business items. There would be shorter plenary sessions via the Internet that would bring all the regional groups of delegates together to take action on proposals.

What Time Is It?

Perhaps the biggest logistical obstacle is the different time zones. When it is 8 am in Chicago, it is 3 pm in West Africa and Western Europe, it is 5 pm in East Africa and Moscow, it is 6 am in California, and it is 10 pm in the Philippines. No matter what time is chosen for plenary meetings, someone will be inconvenienced.

The starting times proposed above might inconvenience the smallest number of delegates for a three- or four-hour plenary. Another alternative would be for the Western Jurisdiction delegates to meet in a mid-America city and create a “bubble” for meeting together there. The Filipino delegates could do the same by flying to the Middle East (where there are major Filipino populations) and meeting in a hotel there. (Travel, hotel, and meals for all delegates would be paid by the general church.) This minimal travel outside their home area would reduce the inconvenience for Western Jurisdiction and Filipino delegates. (As a side benefit, most delegates would not have to travel long distances and would not have to cope with drastic time changes in their internal clocks.)

Since the length of each day’s plenary would be so short, the regional gatherings of delegates could use the time either before or after the plenary to hear presentations, ask questions, and enter into discussion and debate. They would then be ready to take action during the plenary sessions. Such an approach would maximize the use of time, while keeping the plenary manageable in length and complexity.

Can You Hear Me Now?

The other major logistical obstacle is assuring adequate Internet access for the regional delegate gatherings, particularly in Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Philippines. With a limited agenda, and even with shortened plenary sessions, a four-day General Conference should be enough time to accomplish the essential business. With travel being more localized and much lower hotel and food costs, the General Conference budget could provide extra funds to set up Internet nodes where needed for the regional gatherings. In some cases, we could set up the nodes in annual conference office buildings, which would yield a lasting benefit for the annual conference to use beyond just the General Conference meeting. With a six-month lead time, surely we could overcome the technological barriers.

The Need for Integrity

The fact that a handful of voters at the 2019 General Conference were not authorized delegates points to the need to ensure the integrity of the participating delegates. Trained observers functioning on behalf of the Commission on the General Conference could attend each regional site and authenticate the credentials of delegates. The observers could also monitor the proceedings at each site to ensure that there is no manipulation or undue influence upon delegates, and that they have the freedom to discuss all the relevant issues.

How to Handle Amendments and Questions

For those of us who have participated in virtual annual conference sessions, the most difficult aspect is fairly allowing questions to be asked and answered, as well as considering amendments to any proposal. The time lag between the presider and any person asking for the floor made the process go very slowly.

One way to address this would be to use the time either before or after the plenary session each day to surface questions and potential amendments. Questions posed in the regional groups could be forwarded to the General Conference secretary. A time could be built into the agenda of the next plenary session to hear those questions and the answers. That way, all the delegates would have the benefit of hearing the questions raised and answered.

The rules could stipulate that proposed amendments would first have to be adopted by the regional gathering of delegates in order to be considered by the plenary. If adopted by the regional gathering, the amendment could be forwarded to the General Conference secretary and prepared to be introduced at the appropriate plenary. This process would cut down on multiple amendments and provide an orderly way to get them before the body. Speeches could be rotated among the regional gatherings, so that all parts of the church can fairly participate in the discussion. The fact that delegates could speak in their regional gathering might also cut down on the number of speeches needed during the plenary sessions.

Can You Understand Me?

Translators would need to be present at the regional gatherings that needed them. Delegates who need translation could request it, enabling the most efficient assignment of translators to the venues where needed. The use of local translators could reduce cost. To further maximize the use of time, presentations could be recorded ahead of time and translation could be dubbed in. The presentations could be shown at the regional gatherings before or after the plenary in the language that works for the delegates in that regional gathering. One set of translators could be available during each plenary session to translate on a separate channel for all the delegates who need that translation.

Is This Legal?

Concerns have been raised that the Book of Discipline does not provide for a virtual General Conference, or that the Judicial Council would rule the process adopted unconstitutional. However, the Discipline gives the General Conference the power to set its own rules. The 2019 General Conference operated by a different set of rules from a normal, in-person General Conference. Virtual annual conference meetings in 2020 operated by different sets of rules from the normal annual conference. Of course, virtual annual conferences are not provided for in the Discipline, either, but they were held in 2020 and may be held again in 2021.

If the rules are carefully drafted, using the experience of many annual conferences last year, they can be drawn within the boundaries established by the Discipline. The first order of business would be for the delegates to adopt those rules authorizing a virtual/distributed General Conference. Once that is done, there is little chance that the Judicial Council would rule such a process unconstitutional.

The bottom line is that a virtual/distributed General Conference is doable. There may be issues I have not considered that might rule it out, but it would be best to try it. We would all prefer to meet in person, but in the absence of that possibility, a virtual General Conference can take care of the necessary business to enable the denomination to move forward into the future.

Given the uncertainty and the long-lasting nature of the pandemic, the earliest we could reasonably hold an in-person General Conference might be fall of 2022. Even then, it might need to be postponed until spring of 2023. The church simply cannot remain stuck in the current situation for another year or two. With some cooperation and goodwill on the part of groups across the theological spectrum, we can adopt the plan of separation and congregations and annual conferences can freely choose the kind of church of which they want to be part. The fellowship of the committed in each church can then move forward with alignment in mission, vision, and belief. That is the only recipe that allows for a faithful and positive future for all United Methodists.

Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.