by Steve | Apr 14, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
By John Lomperis
Congregations who wish to disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church (UMC) have a historic, rapidly expiring opportunity to keep their church buildings and parsonages. Despite the historic nature of this opportunity, proceeding with United Methodist disaffiliation can seem scary, even in conferences where the bishops have not effectively locked the exit doors.
Yet, it is important to understand that your congregation not voting for United Methodist disaffiliation before your final annual conference session this year is itself a major decision. That would be a decision to permanently stay United Methodist. There are no clear exit alternatives that your congregation would have after your annual conference’s final session this year (usually no later than June, although some conferences have scheduled special sessions in the fall). Any promises some bishops have made to potentially offer an alternative exit path within your annual conference after 2023 can be unilaterally rescinded by one UMC official or another, just as easily as we have seen so many bishops rescind other solemn vows and promises in recent years.
It is a major decision, either way.
But I have recently gathered detailed testimonies from several congregations who have decided that they needed to pursue United Methodist disaffiliation, even with all the daunting challenges of building consensus in the congregation, raising the finances required from the UMC, and questions about the future.
Obviously, every congregation’s story is unique. But as your own congregation perhaps considers stepping out in faith and pursuing United Methodist disaffiliation, it may be helpful to consider the testimonies of others who have gone before you. Thanks to their brave steps, these are no longer uncharted waters. These congregations span a range of sizes, internal cultures, and contexts, from a range of different states and annual conferences.
Building consensus is one major challenge.
In one larger South Central Jurisdiction congregation, lay opposition to United Methodist disaffiliation centered on skepticism that denominational leaders would openly defy the official rules of our denomination. This skepticism was quickly mollified by the sharing of the official report of how the New England Annual Conference had formally committed to “nonconformity” with the biblical, duly established moral standards of the UMC Book of Discipline. There are plenty of other examples that could have been shared from across the country. But for this congregation, that was enough, and their vote to disaffiliate was nearly unanimous.
Facts are our friends.
In one Midwestern congregation, a relatively small group within the membership eagerly rushed forward to hurry the congregation into United Methodist disaffiliation. But the reasons why they wanted this, or even what the congregation was really being asked to decide, were not clear to many outside this limited group. Predictably, things did not go well with this group’s initial failures to communicate.
But then this congregation stepped back and tried a different approach, consisting of multiple town hall meetings offering a wide range of information and involvement throughout the congregation. It is vitally important that in such discernment, members of a range of perspectives be given a chance to share information and have their concerns heard. In this congregation, the more members learned the facts about the current situation in the UMC, the more consensus steadily built. By the time of the church conference, this congregation, which had previously been divided on the question of United Methodist disaffiliation, voted by well over 90 percent to disaffiliate!
Even congregations that are theologically divided have reached strong consensus to pursue United Methodist disaffiliation as members, through ongoing discernment, learn the facts about the UMC’s dysfunction and decline as well as the increasingly unchecked liberal extremism and intolerance of its leaders.
From another congregation, one couple shared:
“For years we have been warned that the United Methodist Church was becoming more liberal and moving away from traditional Biblical theology. Being a small, rural congregation, we ‘assumed’ this would have no effect on us. We continued to worship, using the Bible as our guide, all the while maintaining our obligations to the United Methodist Church.”
But then their lay leader returned from their annual conference session with a report of a new liberal stance their region of the UMC had taken, along with the denomination’s growing intolerance of non-liberals. Now the once seemingly distant problems of the denomination were coming much closer.
This couple continued:
“This was a scary thought. How would we as a couple react? We have worshipped in this church 50+ years, we have been very active, and our church family has been very important in our Christian walk. We wondered if we should walk away and try to find another church? It was a very stressful and unsettling time.
We felt the United Methodist Church was changing the rules, becoming more worldly, more politically correct, and ignoring God’s Word.
God’s timing is perfect. A Pastor was sent to us who was willing to inform us of the disaffiliation process and guide us through it.
The United Methodist Church would not allow us to just walk away, many obstacles were put in place, none were easy to complete, and the financial ‘ransom’ fee felt unreasonable as well as unreachable. All of this was infuriating.
The vote to disaffiliate was nerve racking, requiring 2/3 of the membership, not just a majority. The time of the vote came. It seemed the counting took forever. The results were announced, what a BLESSING, 99 percent were in favor of disaffiliation. Relief, joy, happy tears, filled the sanctuary that evening.
God has been faithful, our documentation was complete in the allotted time, by people working diligently, and finances were made available.
The day the announcement was made that we were officially disaffiliated, it was met with much joy, at last we would be able to worship as the Bible says and have ownership of our building.
This decision has hopefully eliminated tears, sleepless nights, and that unsettled feeling for many. PRAISE GOD!”
The lay leader from this same small, rural congregation shared that what was instrumental for building consensus on United Methodist disaffiliation was having meetings where they could hear from one conservative and one liberal leader within their annual conference, to fairly hear both sides.
Overcoming financial obstacles
It must be remembered that staying United Methodist is itself a very long-term and costly commitment, financially and otherwise. However, paying the large one-time fee required for disaffiliation, which some annual conferences have needlessly and greedily inflated, can still seem daunting.
This same lay leader shared about how his small, rural congregation of 60-80 people raised more than $85,000 within two months, including a collection of $45,000 on a single day. He said, “I firmly believe that God blessed us miraculously and affirmed our decision to leave the UMC.”
The pastor of a Southern congregation averaging over 400 in worship told me: “My own church … had a disaffiliation number of $484,000. We set out to raise the figure and two weeks later had raised $750,000. We paid our disaffiliation, set up designated funds for children, students, and missions, and [are] moving forward in a mighty way.” While that congregation is larger and faced fewer annual conference barriers than many others, that is rather dramatic fundraising over a short period of time.
I spoke at length with a pastor of a congregation in a Northern jurisdiction, whose annual conference leadership was choosing to charge them much more than was required by the Discipline. The price tag they were given was roughly equivalent to the congregation’s entire annual budget, or about half of its earlier-assessed property value. It was intimidating.
But this second-career pastor drew on his business background. He told the story far and wide about how the congregation was taking this major step to pursue faithfulness. They raised some 25 percent of the funds they needed from outside the congregation, including friends who live elsewhere and people in the community who were impressed with their stand for faithfulness. For their part, some members sold possessions to help raise the money. At one point, the pastor suddenly came into possession of an unneeded car, which he promptly sold to give the proceeds towards disaffiliation fundraising.
This congregation ultimately ended up raising enough money to fully cover disaffiliation costs and also get into a strong enough financial position to pay off a second mortgage!
One woman from a large congregation (whose United Methodist bishop was notoriously heavy-handed) told me of her congregation being charged a needlessly “exorbitant fee” to disaffiliate, forcing them to borrow money. The pastor and leaders helped the membership understand the hefty price tag. As this lay member recalled:
“Fair or unfair, they knew the story. Even with the unfair fees being required by the conference, our church members still wanted to disaffiliate from the UMC. We wanted to contend for the Lord and His Word…all of them.”
They borrowed what they needed in the early fall of last year.
“Before the close of 2022, less than four (4) months later, on Christmas Eve, our borrowed funds had been paid back! Our church members stepped up to the plate and paid off our loan. We are now debt free and planning on worshiping passionately, loving extravagantly, and witnessing boldly as a new Global Methodist Church. The air seems fresher and cleaner at our congregation now. We wish this for all those considering disaffiliating from the United Methodist denomination.”
Facing fears of loss
With United Methodist disaffiliation, as with any other major change in a congregation, there are understandable worries about potentially losing people in the transition. But we need not let such fears paralyze us.
One pastor recalled, “We lost a few people who hated to pay the disaffiliation fee.” But then the congregation “has had more visitors and more join in the last five months than in the previous five years.” Its worship attendance has now significantly increased, which the pastor credits to “God at work drawing people in.”
There are other stories of congregations growing after they disaffiliated, even making up for the losses of others.
For example, I recently learned of one little congregation that for the last several years had only seen an average of 30 people in worship, but after they disaffiliated on December 10, saw their average weekly worship shoot up to 80, which is far more than doubling!
Whether your congregation chooses United Methodist disaffiliation or to remain, it is a major decision either way. Either path brings significant costs and uncertainties.
But United Methodist disaffiliation is no longer as uncharted as it was a couple years ago. If you go that route, there are now over two thousand congregations who have gone before you.
If your congregation is considering United Methodist disaffiliation, there are many helpful things you can learn by seeking out and hearing about the experience of other congregations near you who have already made that transition.
John Lomperis is director of UMAction, a program of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, and a three-time delegate to General Conference.
by Steve | Apr 6, 2023 | Perspective / News
By Thomas Lambrecht
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). This verse is sometimes called the “theme verse” of the Gospel of Mark. It encapsulates in one sentence what Jesus’ life on earth was all about.
As we approach the most sacred days of the church year – Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday – we are driven once again to consider the sacrifice Jesus made out of his own life, all for our sake.
That sacrifice began when he took on human form in the Incarnation. We cannot begin to imagine what it took to squeeze the divine life of Christ into a mortal human body. All that Jesus laid aside when he became a man is summed up in Paul’s quote of a first-century hymn, “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (Philippians 2:6-7).
Jesus laid aside all the power and prerogatives of being God in order to take on human form. Older versions translate it as “he emptied himself.” That is a good description of what he did. He sacrificed his comfort, position, and power in order to come to earth to save us.
Once on earth, Jesus lived a life of service. He came “not to be served, but to serve.” His life was not his own. He lived in obedience to his Father. As the hymn goes on to say, “And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient” (Philippians 2:8). Throughout his ministry, Jesus emphasized that he could do nothing other than what God told him to do. “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does … By myself I can do nothing; … for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me” (John 5:19, 30).
Of course, the ultimate fulfillment of Jesus’ purpose to be a sacrifice was carried out on the cross, where Jesus became “obedient to death – even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:8). This was the most shameful and painful death the Romans could devise. Yet, it had a purpose. “[Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (I John 2:2). Christ sacrificed himself through his suffering and death in order to absorb the penalty for our sins and defang their power in our lives.
The validity and effectiveness of Jesus’ sacrifice was attested by his resurrection and ascension. “Therefore, God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name” (Philippians 2:9). It was Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation that set apart his death as no ordinary martyrdom. Just as Jesus demonstrated his authority to forgive sins by healing the paralyzed man (Mark 2), God demonstrated that Jesus’ sacrificial death triumphed over sin and the grave by raising him from the dead and exalting him to God’s right hand.
This is the story of the Gospel, condensed into the events of the last week of Jesus’ earthly life, which we remember and celebrate this week.
Our Sacrifice
Jesus lived a sacrificial life. He calls on us to also live a sacrificial life. “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it” (Mark 8:34-35).
We could “sell our soul” in order to gain the whole world, but we would be unable to keep it. It would be ours for only a brief time, followed by a soul-less eternity. On the other hand, by surrendering our lives to Jesus and sacrificing our own wills for his, we will gain an eternity full of real life and love.
“Peter answered him, ‘We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne … everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life’” (Matthew 19:27-29).
Our sacrifice is to put to death our sinful nature and the desires and actions stemming from it. “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your [sinful] nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry … anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other” (Colossians 3:4-10). “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).
It is hard to sacrifice what we want that is tainted by our sinful nature. Such sacrifice is only possible as we remain connected to Christ (“Christ lives in me”). He alone can give us the desire and the ability to surrender our self-will to his. “Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me … Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:4-5).
Sometimes, our sacrifice is not only to lay down our sinful nature to surrender to God’s will and work in our lives. Sometimes, our sacrifice is literally to give up something material for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:12). Just as Jesus laid down his life for us, sometimes we are called to lay down our lives for another or for the sake of obedience to God.
In order to be true to our understanding of the Gospel and God’s eternal will, sacrifice has been required of us. Sacrifice is not pleasant, fun, or fulfilling. It is an emptying of a significant part of our very selves. Just as Abraham was called to sacrifice his promised son (Genesis 22), we are sometimes called to sacrifice something very precious to us in order to be faithful to Jesus Christ.
We should not think such sacrifices are extraordinary or abnormal. Rather, they are part of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus, as pointed out above. Yet, such sacrifices are possible only by the grace of God living and working within us.
Amy Carmichael knew what it meant to sacrifice for God. Born in Ireland in 1867, she gave herself to missionary work in her late 20’s. She served as a missionary in India for 56 years without a furlough until her death in 1951 at the age of 83. Her life and writings were incredibly influential for a generation of missionaries and Christian leaders who came after her. Her attitude was, “Missionary life is simply a chance to die.” In reflecting on what she was called to give up for God, she believed, “When I consider the cross of Christ, how can anything that I do be called sacrifice?”
As he demonstrated by the example of his life, Christ’s sacrifice calls us to a willingness to sacrifice in our own lives. We are to lay our sinful natures on the altar, purging sin and taking on Christ’s righteousness and holiness into our lives. We are to lay aside the things of this world as needed in order to embrace the fullness of life in Christ for eternity. Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation show that our sacrifices will not be in vain.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Mar 31, 2023 | In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht —
As The United Methodist Church goes through this season of disaffiliation, there is much change ahead. Many disaffiliating congregations are uniting with the Global Methodist Church, forming a new Methodist expression that continues our historic Wesleyan, orthodox understanding of Christianity. A much smaller number of disaffiliating congregations are remaining independent or joining networks of churches that are forming. Those remaining United Methodist also anticipate much change in both how the church is governed and the message that the church promotes.
In this time of change, it is important to grasp the reality that God is working in all of these situations to do something new. While some may want to pass judgment on the “new thing” that God may or may not be doing in someone else’s church, God’s verdict is the one that counts, and we may not know that verdict for decades or until we get to heaven.
In the meantime, how can we ourselves participate in the new thing that God is doing? Isaiah has some suggestions.
“Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past.
See, I am doing a new thing!
Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?
I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland,
To give drink to my people, my chosen,
The people I formed for myself, that they may proclaim my praise”
(Isaiah 43:18-21).
We can begin by releasing our focus on the past. “Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past.” Whether we are forming something new or renewing something currently in existence, we can certainly learn lessons from what happened in the past. It will be important to apply those lessons to the new thing that is forming.
However, we cannot live in the past or focus on the past. We cannot dwell on what happened in the past. Many have experienced painful circumstances during this season of disaffiliation. Relationships have been harmed or even broken. People and congregations have been treated unfairly. The process of disaffiliation has been costly, both in financial resources and in emotional and spiritual resources.
But if we bear a grudge over how we were treated in the past, we will never be able to move forward into the new thing God is doing in and through us. The word “forgive” in Greek means “to release or let go.” We can move into a spirit of forgiveness toward those who have hurt us, releasing them – and ourselves – to move forward unencumbered into a new reality. Why would we want to carry with us into a new season the baggage of a hurtful past?
We can focus on the new thing God is doing. “See, I am doing a new thing! … Do you not perceive it?” The exhortation that Henry Blackaby put forward in Experiencing God rings true to our current situation: Find out what God is doing and join him in his work.
Some are part of starting a whole new congregation. Others are revitalizing an existing congregation with new mission or programs or priorities. Some are even forming new annual conferences, districts, and a whole new denomination. Wherever we find ourselves, where can we see God working? What is God doing in the arena where we serve?
A focus on the new thing God is doing can provide the momentum and guidance we need to carry us forward and recover from the trauma of recent experience. The important question is, “How can I join in to what God is doing, joining him in his work?” It will take every person putting in our time, resources, and abilities to participate in the Body of Christ to form or reform the new thing God is doing. Sitting on the sidelines or, worse yet, taking potshots of criticism at those doing the work will not help God’s new thing to come into fruition. We can focus on what God is doing and join in.
We can rely on the promises of God’s provision. God is making a way for us, even when it seems like there is no way. God is the way-maker and promise keeper. We just need to keep looking and asking him to show us the way forward. For each of us, the way may be a bit different, depending upon our unique circumstances. The way may not be easy (through the desert or wasteland?), but by God’s grace it will be doable.
Furthermore, God promises to provide for us on that way. “I am making … streams in the wasteland to give drink to my people.” Water brings refreshment and new life. And don’t we need that refreshment and new life right now, as we begin to come out of this very difficult season? That refreshment is mostly spiritual, as we sense God working in new ways in and through us.
Water is also symbolic of the Holy Spirit, the presence of God with us now. “’Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.’ By this [Jesus] meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive” (John 7:38-39). We can count on God’s presence with us, as we travel the way God makes for us into a new reality. As Moses said, “If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here. How will anyone know that you are pleased with me and with your people unless you go with us? What else will distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face of the earth?” (Exodus 33:15-16).
God promises to be with us, to never leave or forsake us. He will help us get where we need to go, as he creates a way for us through difficult circumstances and sustains us on the journey.
We can acknowledge who we are as God’s people. The point behind the new thing that God was doing in Isaiah’s time – and in ours – is to form a people for himself. We are God’s people, belonging to him. There is no higher status than that!
Knowing who we are and whose we are gives our lives and ministry purpose and meaning. We are not calling the shots. We are responding to God’s working in our lives through his Spirit. We are attempting to live our lives the Jesus way, informed and formed by God’s Word. We have a unique identity, different from how the world sees us or sees itself.
Our identity first and foremost is as God’s chosen people. Within that awareness, we have a sub-identity as part of the Wesleyan/Methodist family. And within that family, we have individual identities as denominations and congregations. In our focus on the smaller identity, we must never lose focus on the overarching one. Everything we do is in service to being part of God’s people.
This identity is something God is forming in us. Through his individual formation of each one of us as a disciple of Jesus Christ, we become formed into a group, a congregation, a denomination. We are not “holy solitaries,” as John Wesley put it. We are formed into a people of God, a community of faith. The attraction of being part of a denomination is that it helps us understand ourselves as part of something larger than our individual selves or our individual congregation. It helps us visualize ourselves as part of the larger people of God, working and serving together around the world.
Acknowledging ourselves as God’s people enables us to fearlessly grasp the new thing God is doing among us.
Finally, our ultimate purpose is to proclaim God’s praise. We are not building our own kingdoms, but Christ’s. We are not exalting ourselves, but Jesus. We are pointing, not at what we have done, but what God has done.
Keeping the focus on the praise of God and the proclamation of his glory helps us keep our priorities straight. It helps us know our place in the universe. And it puts the new thing that God is doing in proper perspective.
God’s new thing is not primarily for us, although we do benefit. His new thing is for the sake of a broken and needy world. And primarily, his new thing is “for the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:12).
Let us by God’s grace and in his time put the past behind us and strive to bring to fruition the new thing that God is doing in Methodism today, that we might exalt our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and proclaim the praise of our glorious God!
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Mar 24, 2023 | In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht —
In two decisions just released, the Judicial Council has clarified several matters related to the upcoming 2024 General Conference and addressed some shortcomings in the Congo Central Conference.
Another General Conference
In Decision 1451, the Judicial Council ruled that the General Conference session to be held in 2024 was really the postponed 2020 session. In doing so, the Council in effect lengthened the 2017-2020 quadrennium to include the years 2021-24. It mandated that the same budget should continue that was approved for 2017-2020. It allowed all officers in place to extend their terms until the next General Conference (2024), when they should have expired in 2020. So, we are currently in an eight-year quadrennium. (See my previous article on this decision.)
Now, in Decision 1472, the Judicial Council is mandating a “make-up” General Conference to be held sometime in 2025-27, prior to the regular General Conference to be held in 2028. They base this decision on the tortured logic of Decision 1451 that allowed them to postpone the 2020 General Conference, rather than taking the more common-sense step of cancelling it altogether. “The Constitution ‘establishes the minimum frequency at which the General Conference must convene, not the actual year when this occurs,’ by setting the number at once every four years in ¶ 14. JCD 1451. Since ¶ 14 stipulates one session per every four years, another regular session of General Conference is therefore required.”
It should be noted that the Judicial Council already violated its “once per every four years” statute when it allowed the 2020 General Conference not to be held for 8 years. There was no regular General Conference held during the quadrennium of 2017-2020, just the called special session in 2019. And rather than insisting that the “postponed” 2020 Conference be held as soon as practicable, it allowed that conference to be scheduled in the very last year of the 2021-2024 quadrennium.
This decision continues the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic to reverberate through the general structure of the church, rather than seeking a return to normalcy at the earliest possible moment. The General Conference generally meets before the next quadrennium to set budgets and elect officers for the quadrennium to follow. It therefore does no good for the 2020 General Conference to meet in 2024 to set budget and elect officers for a quadrennium that expires at the end of 2024!
Rather, the 2024 session of General Conference would set budgets and elect officers for the 2025-2028 quadrennium. However, the mandate of another General Conference to be held in 2025-2027, followed by another General Conference in 2028, means that the actions of the 2024 session (as well as one held one to three years later) will have limited lifespan.
It should be noted that four of the nine Judicial Council members (one short of a majority) registered their dissent from this mandate for an extra General Conference. Member Beth Capen points out in her dissent that “Our very structure is quadrennial and any attempt to hold a Regular Session of General Conference in less than four years will have a chaotic structural effect and the consequences will likely be far more egregious than the difficulty that has been experienced by the denomination’s need to continue to exist within the confines of rules and legislation that were subject to amendment in 2020.”
Many of the officers elected at General Conference, jurisdictional and central conferences, and annual conferences, have four-year terms. Those terms were extended to eight years by the postponement of the 2020 General Conference. But if another General Conference meets in 2026, does that mean the terms of those elected in 2024 would only last two years?
Capen gives the example of Judicial Council members, who are elected to eight-year terms. Under the Judicial Council’s reasoning, only the Judicial Council members whose terms expired in 2020 will be replaced by electing new members in 2024. They would actually have served 12-year terms instead of eight. If another General Conference is held in 2026, the members whose terms expired in 2024 would be replaced at that time (since it is in effect the “postponed 2024 session” of General Conference). They would actually have served 10-year terms instead of eight. Those elected in 2024 would be replaced at the 2028 General Conference, having served only four years instead of eight. Then, those elected in 2026 would be replace at the regular 2032 General Conference, having served only six years instead of eight. Are you confused, yet?
On the other hand, if the officers elected and budgets approved in 2024 are really for the whole quadrennium 2025-2028, then there is no compelling reason for the General Conference to meet again in between, save the overly legalistic, rigid reading of the Constitution proposed by the Judicial Council.
This same chaos and confusion would affect the election of other General Conference officials, such as members of the University Senate, General Commission on General Conference, general secretaries of general boards and agencies, and board members of all the general boards and agencies. It would also affect annual conference officials, including the election of lay members of annual conference, the conference chancellor, members of the conference Board of Ordained Ministry, the Administrative Review Committee, and other annual conference agencies, as well. Most annual conferences have ignored this train of thinking and have adapted the terms of office to fit the exigencies of the current situation. But it shows how unworkable the Judicial Council’s thinking on these issues is.
Finally, there is the matter of cost. We have been told that it costs $10 million to hold a General Conference of the normal length. By mandating an extra General Conference session, the Judicial Council just added $10 million in costs to a budget that is already projected to be cut by one-third from that of the previous quadrennium. Is it fair for a small group of (in this case) five Judicial Council members to commit the church to spend that amount of money?
All these problems could have been avoided by taking the simple step of Judicial Council cancelling the 2020 General Conference and designating the 2024 General Conference as that very thing. That would have put the operating schedule of the church back on its normal quadrennial footing immediately. Instead, Decisions 1451 and 1472 are prolonging the chaos, confusion, and pain caused by the original decision to postpone the 2020 General Conference until 2024. The Judicial Council has not served the church well in this matter.
Filling Vacant Delegate Spots
In the same Decision 1472, the Judicial Council reaffirmed that persons who are elected as delegates to General Conference, but whose status has changed since their election, are no longer eligible to serve. This most commonly applies to laypersons who become ordained clergy. In this time of disaffiliation, it would also apply to clergy and lay members who have left the denomination. Unfortunately, some delegates also die or experience health problems that makes it impossible for them to continue serving.
Ordinarily, when a person dies, resigns, or is no longer able to serve as a General Conference delegate, they are replaced by the next elected reserve delegate. If there are four General Conference delegates, there would also be four Jurisdictional Conference delegates who act as reserves. Then there are normally four Jurisdictional reserves, who could also move up. Two-thirds of the delegation would have to remove themselves from serving for there to be a problem at General Conference. It is more likely to be a problem at the Jurisdictional level since there are fewer reserves available there.
The Judicial Council made clear that delegates going off the delegation need to be replaced in order by the reserves below them. Only in the case when the delegation runs out of reserves may the annual conference hold a special election to elect more delegates and reserves. Again, this is more likely to affect the jurisdictional conference delegates than the General Conference ones, but it is helpful to have this clarity.
Issues in the Congo Central Conference
In Memorandum 1471, the Judicial Council stated it did not have jurisdiction to decide on complaints that Fair Process procedures for clergy and lay members in the Congo Central Conference had been violated. The Council noted that “since April 2020 to current, numerous clergy and lay members of the Congo Central Conference have submitted complaints to the Judicial Council” about the fact that the Congo Central Conference had not established an Episcopacy Committee, a Committee on Investigation, or a Judicial Court.
Five members (a majority) of the Judicial Council (including all three African members) admonished the Congo Central Conference about its need to establish the required committees and court, along with ensuring that clergy and lay members are treated fairly and have the right to appeal any action against them. These are all required by the Book of Discipline but have been ignored in the recent history of the Congo Central Conference. As noted in previous Perspectives (here and here), this has resulted in clergy being defrocked without trial or removed from all appointments and in laity being excommunicated from the church.
The Council also noted that they had been referred to a purported 2020 Book of Discipline adopted by the Congo Central Conference. Since the most recent general Book of Discipline is the 2016 one, the Council declared that a 2020 version does not exist. This calls into question whether the changes adopted by the Congo Central Conference – most notably a shift to lifetime episcopacy – are still valid. The Judicial Council did not rule on that question since it was not before them.
One hopes that the Congo Central Conference will work diligently to bring its structure into compliance with the requirements of the Discipline, for the sake of fairness and brotherly love in the way that members are treated.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Mar 21, 2023 | Magazine Articles, March/April 2023
By Rob Renfroe —
When it comes to how to handle our time together leading up to General Conference, we United Methodists need to do better. As those presently remaining in the UM Church research which option forward suits them best, our conversations seem to be led by persons who are committed to accusations and outrage. Some are committed to portraying those on the other side as possessing the worst possible motives. Others are always deeply offended, actually indignant, because someone has dared to criticize the denomination they have chosen for themselves. It has been wisely stated, “No one can think clearly with their fists clenched.” And right now, we have a lot of clenched fists in the UM Church.
How might we do better? First, let’s focus on what the leaders of the various movements say and write. Everyone in the UM Church may and should have a voice about the future of the church. But it’s foolish and counterproductive to be outraged about something said by a person who is not particularly knowledgeable about the issues and who has very little influence with others.
I often read that traditionalists have said that the UM Church will change its core doctrines. Maybe some have, but not any traditional leader I have spoken with or whose writings I have read. To attack traditionalists for statements made by persons who are not in places of leadership, who are not thought leaders in our movement, or for that matter not even privy to our thinking – well, that is a waste of time.
I have come across statements made by some “uber-progressive” United Methodists who seemingly want to gain notoriety by being provocative on Twitter or Facebook. If after being in literally scores of meetings with progressive and centrist leaders over the last two decades, I don’t know this person’s name and a little research does not reveal that he or she has any following or influence, rather than being outraged with what he or she has written, I move on and think, “Well, the remaining UM Church is going to have fun with that one.” Every voice has every right to speak. But not every voice needs to be engaged, “exposed,” or criticized. We would do better to see the views of the leading thinkers of each movement within the UM Church as being representative of that movement. And we would do better interacting with those views. It’s likely to be a more civil, thoughtful, and healthy conversation.
Another way we can do better is to lessen the usage of the term “misinformation.” At present, labeling something as “misinformation” is often nothing more than a lazy way of not engaging with someone who thinks differently than we do. And to be clear, an opinion that differs from ours is not misinformation. It’s a different belief, a different way of seeing reality than we do. Those who throw that term around would do well first to think, “Hmm, there just might be another side to this issue. And, horrors, I could be wrong.”
I have been accused of misinforming many times. When I ask for specifics, few are forthcoming. Or after the offense has been spelled out, it’s simply that I believe differently about an issue than my accuser does. Once I was charged with giving out misinformation because I said I believed the decline in the membership and attendance of the UM Church would be even more rapid after it decides to marry and ordain partnered gay persons. That’s not misinformation. I may be right, or I may be wrong. But it’s an opinion based on the pattern we see in every other mainline church that has made that change. The right response would be to make a case for why the UM Church will be different than the Episcopalians (ECUSA), Presbyterians (PCUSA), the Lutherans (ELCA), or the United Church of Christ (UCC). That would have been a worthwhile conversation and my accuser might have convinced me that I’m wrong. Instead, because he went to the misinformation trope, I went away thinking he wasn’t a serious person and he cared much less about the future of the UM Church than he claimed. I think the same thing when bishops and others dismiss everyone who criticizes their actions as being the purveyors of misinformation.
Traditionalists should be just as careful to engage with what they believe are false statements made by progressives and centrists. Blanket dismissals and catch phrases such as “misinformation” do not help us understand those with whom we disagree or motivate us to correct what we believe they have misrepresented. United Methodists of all theological persuasions are sufficiently intelligent to follow thoughtful debates and determine for themselves what is their best course forward. Those of us in positions of leadership owe it to them to do better than dismiss each other’s views as “misinformation.”
Here’s something else we need to do better. Church. The UM Church has declined every year since its origin in 1968. There are some bright spots, but most serious United Methodists, regardless of theology, agree that the UM Church is top-heavy, institutional, and stymied by bureaucrats who do not want the budgets of their favorite board or agency to be cut. The UM Church needs to do church better.
But so does the Global Methodist Church. The GMC simply cannot be UMC 2.0. It cannot do ministry the way the UM Church has done it and believe the results will be different simply because we have the right theology. Too many of our heroes from the past two generations have fought, suffered, and been vilified to provide us with the opportunity the GMC now possesses. We must seek God, pray for the guidance and the power of the Holy Spirit, and commit ourselves to existing for those who do not yet know Christ. Getting out of the UM Church was never the point. Being in a place where we can fully devote ourselves to spreading the Gospel was always the goal.
I am happy that early indications are that the GMC will be different. The first three convening annual conferences of the GMC were held in January and February, and none of them felt like “business as usual.”
The Mid-Texas Annual Conference held the GMC’s first-ever convening conference. Was it different, even better, from a typical United Methodist annual conference? You decide. It had one business meeting lasting an hour and a half. The rest of the time was spent in worship, preaching, and Bible study. The altar was opened, and people flooded to pray for the GMC and to pray over each other. Tears were common and the power of the Holy Spirit was present. The Conference ordained 28 persons. The first person ordained in the GMC was an African American woman. The second was a Hispanic man. The third was a 20-something mother of a newborn. At the same time, a youth convocation was held where dozens of young people gave their lives to Christ. You can decide if that’s better than the typical UM annual conference. But it’s a great start for those who want to do church differently.
The following week the West Plains Annual Conference gathered to celebrate its new beginning in the GMC. Nearly 75 percent of the churches in the Northwest Texas Annual Conference have disaffiliated and most have joined the West Plains Annual Conference of the Global Methodist Church. Business as usual? No, there was little “business” at all – about an hour’s worth. The remainder of the conference was spent in worship, Bible study, and vision casting, highlighted by a final commissioning service that sent pastors and laypersons into the mission field that is the world to make disciples of Jesus Christ.
The next week the East Texas Annual Conference held its convening conference. Two hours were utilized for business. The rest of the time was spent in worship and in workshops that focused on doctrine, evangelism, discipleship, worship, and effective social witness. Ninety persons were ordained either as deacons or elders. And seven new, start-up churches were received into the fellowship of the Global Methodist Church. Again, not bad for Methodists who want a different way of doing church together.
I am encouraged by what I see in these first three convening annual conferences. This is not business as usual. I want to believe that God has given GMC leaders a vision for a different way of being church. That is what I and many others for decades have worked for and prayed for – a Christ-centered church that is awakened to the will of God, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the needs of a lost world.
We can do better. All of us. In how we end our time together and in how we live into the future. We must do better.
Rob Renfroe is the president of Good News.
