by Steve | Jul 4, 2022 | July-August 2022
News analysis by Thomas Lambrecht
In a highly anticipated decision, the Judicial Council has ruled that annual conferences in the U.S. cannot unilaterally withdraw from The United Methodist Church. The Council of Bishops had asked for a declaratory decision on six questions related to that issue.
In Decision 1366 (pages 43-44), issued in the run-up to the 2019 General Conference, the Judicial Council had ruled that annual conferences could withdraw from the denomination. “An annual conference has the right to vote to withdraw from The United Methodist Church. This reserved right, however, is not absolute but must be counterbalanced by the General Conference’s power to ‘define and fix the powers and duties of annual conferences’ in ¶16.3.”
Traditionalists had argued that a right reserved to the annual conference could not be nullified by the fact that General Conference had failed to act. Just because General Conference had previously declined to adopt a process for annual conferences to withdraw did not mean that such withdrawal could not take place.
The recently-issued Decision 1444 now clarifies that “the General Conference must first enact enabling legislation to establish the right to withdraw.” The decision goes on to say, “An annual conference has the right to vote. However, the right to vote is constitutionally distinct from the right to withdraw – the former being a ‘reserved right’ under ¶33 and the latter a right granted and regulated exclusively by the General Conference through exercise of its ‘full legislative powers’ under ¶16.3” (emphasis original).
This reasoning is basically a way for the Judicial Council to walk back its plain statement in Decision 1366 about an annual conference’s right to withdraw without saying that it had changed its mind. Decision 1366 says, “An annual conference has the right to vote to withdraw.” The purpose of the vote is withdrawal. The idea of voting is meaningless without the effect of the vote being withdrawal. To separate the two and say an annual conference has the right to vote but not to withdraw is pure sophistry.
The Judicial Council has essentially changed its mind and now believes that the matter of annual conference withdrawal is a “distinctively connectional matter” (¶16) and therefore needs General Conference action before it can take place.
In a side note, the decision implies that annual conferences outside the U.S. must follow the process outlined in ¶572 to become “autonomous Methodist churches.” “Autonomy – that is separation – of an annual conference outside the United States can be granted and effectuated only through enabling legislation passed by the General Conference” (emphasis original). Even though annual conferences outside the U.S. would not become autonomous, but would join the Global Methodist Church, Decision 1444 implies that separation is the same as autonomy, and annual conferences would be expected to use the ¶572 process.
The Bulgaria-Romania Annual Conference has already withdrawn and changed its legal standing, so Decision 1444 will not affect them. Other annual conferences, however, will need to secure the approval of the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, their particular central conference, a two-thirds vote by the annual conference members in their central conference, and the General Conference before separation can be achieved.
The fact that General Conference approval is required for annual conference withdrawal both within and outside the U.S. demonstrates how egregious the decision was to postpone General Conference for a third time until 2024. Again, the church is hamstrung and unable to act to end decades of conflict over theological and ethical issues.
Impact of the Decision. What will this decision mean for the church going forward? It will force some traditionalist churches to remain in the denomination that would otherwise prefer to withdraw and join the Global Methodist Church – at least in the short term. Some churches that had a majority in favor of withdrawal but could not reach the two-thirds vote required under ¶2553 were hoping that they could exit as a part of their annual conference withdrawing. Those “stuck” churches will be reluctant participants in United Methodism going forward. They might even reduce or eliminate their financial support of the denomination through apportionments.
Many will pin their hopes on passing the Protocol or something like it in 2024 that would include a process for annual conferences to withdraw and ease the requirements for local churches under ¶2553. Such a strategy pins hope on the support of some centrist and progressive delegates to enact it, as traditionalists may not hold a majority of delegates at the 2024 General Conference.
A few annual conferences in states with favorable trust law may look at the possibility of ignoring the Judicial Council decision and moving ahead with disaffiliation through the legal process. There have been instances in some states where whole Episcopal dioceses (the equivalent of our annual conference) were able to withdraw from that denomination under neutral principles of trust law. Of course, that moves us into a more adversarial strategy, which we were hoping to avoid. But the punitive response of some UM bishops and annual conferences in stoutly refusing to allow local church disaffiliation under any kind of reasonable terms has already brought us into a confrontational situation.
It would have been a cleaner and more amicable process of separation if annual conferences had been allowed to withdraw. Absent that possibility, we find ourselves in an increasingly adversarial environment. Our hopes for a mutual “bless and send” approach to separation in some places is being replaced by a “tear and rend” approach that will only do harm to local congregations and backfire against the United Methodist desire for a “big tent” welcoming posture and a positive future.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jun 27, 2022 | In the News
By Walter B. Fenton
When The United Methodist Church’s Commission on General Conference postponed the 2020 General Conference for the third time, theologically conservative local churches wanting to exit the denomination were forced to set their sights on their annual conference gatherings to gain some sense of how they might leave the denomination with all their property and assets.
It was widely believed the General Conference would, like many other large international gatherings, meet this year to approve a plan of separation called the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. The plan clearly spelled out how theologically conservative local churches could exit the UM Church and join a new Methodist body.
As the annual conference season unfolds for United Methodists in the U.S., local churches are learning provisions and terms for departing the denomination can vary widely among the 53 UM annual conferences in the U.S. Why the terms vary depends on the bishop who leads an annual conference. Clergy and lay leaders from thousands of theologically conservative local churches have shared exit terms that run the gamut from amicable and gracious to onerous and punitive.
Earlier this year the UM Council of Bishops “affirmed by an overwhelming majority” that a disaffiliation process approved at the 2019 Special General Conference “would be the primary [process] used for disaffiliation and separation.” This disaffiliation process is just one way local churches can exit the denomination, and bishops know there are alternative processes. The majority simply decided it was the process they wanted to use.
Bishops and annual conferences could just as easily allow local churches to move to another denomination (e.g., the Global Methodist Church) rather than disaffiliate. The terms in such a process could be clarified in a comity agreement that is fair to all parties, allowing for an amicable and orderly transfer of a local church.
In fact, Bishop Tom Bickerton, president of the Council of Bishops, immediate past presidents, Bishops Cynthia Harvey and Ken Carter, and other bishops worked for months with theologically conservative leaders to develop a comity agreement based on a provision in the UM Church’s Book of Discipline.
The parties entered the negotiations to create an amicable and orderly fallback plan annual conferences could use if the General Conference was postponed and the Protocol could not be approved. The negotiations only broke down when it became apparent that some bishops were insisting on terms not in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the Protocol.
“It was an opportunity missed,” said the Rev. Keith Boyette, the Global Methodist Church’s senior executive officer. “As originally conceived, the comity agreement adopted as much of the Protocol as possible so centrist, conservative, and progressive Methodists could go their separate ways sooner than later. Unfortunately, what is now unfolding are sundry approaches to separation, some laudable, but others appear driven by exacting as high a price as possible for local church exits.”
In annual conferences where exit terms are reasonable, theologically conservative local churches are planning to accept them as soon as possible. They typically allow churches to disaffiliate after paying apportionments, pension payments, and other nominal fees, in return for clear title to all the local church’s property and assets.
Where terms are officious, burdensome, and impose prohibitively high financial costs, many theologically conservative local churches have decided they have no choice but to remain in the denomination to work for the passage of the Protocol at the 2024 General Conference, and failing that, return to the long battle for a reformed UM Church where leaders abide by its teachings and hold others accountable to them. The only other alternative is to resort to litigation in the secular courts.
“I am very grateful the Wesleyan Covenant Association’s Global Legislative Assembly decided to push forward on behalf of these trapped local churches,” said Boyette. “I know Africa Initiative, the Confessing Movement, Good News, and UMAction will come alongside them to do the great organizing they’ve always done on behalf of theologically conservative United Methodists, particularly those in annual conferences with bishops exhibiting a heart of war rather than a heart of peace.”
Considering the haphazard approach the UM Church has adopted for allowing theologically conservative local churches to leave the denomination, the 2024 General Conference is likely to be an ugly repeat of the infamous 2019 special General Conference. Centrist and progressive United Methodists erupted in anger when a coalition of international delegates from Africa, Europe and Eurasia, the Philippines, and the U.S. soundly defeated a plan to liberalize the UM Church’s sexual ethics that was championed largely by denominational elites and progressives based in the U.S.
“It makes no sense to me to drag out a bitter conflict that continues to drive down UM membership, worship attendance, and financial support, but that’s the UM bishops’ decision, not mine,” said Boyette. “For our part, we in the Global Methodist Church will continue to welcome new congregations and pastors to the fledgling denomination. We stand ready to do whatever we can to assist them as they seek to exit the UM Church.”
Theologically conservative local churches wanting to explore the steps necessary to join the Global Methodist Church should visit the Frequently Asked Questions section of the new denomination’s website, giving particular attention to the second question and the helpful links included in the answer. Learn more about the Global Methodist Church by exploring its website.
The Rev. Walter Fenton is the Deputy Connectional Officer for the Global Methodist Church. Image: Marianne Bos/Unsplash.
by Steve | Jun 24, 2022 | Home Page Hero Slider, In the News
Hosted by the Rev. Rob Renfroe
- The United Methodist Church is Divided and Dividing – the theological and spiritual issues surrounding the division within the denomination.
- Our Differences Regarding the Bible – how divergent views about the Bible creates division within The United Methodist Church.
- Our Differences Regarding Jesus – how differing views about Jesus creates division within the United Methodist Church.
- Our Differences Regarding Sexuality – how United Methodism’s departure from traditional views on marriage and sexuality has created division within The United Methodist Church.
- Why It’s Time for Traditionalists to Leave The United Methodist Church.
- Where Should we Go? The Rev. Rob Renfroe makes the case for moving from the United Methodist Church to the Global Methodist Church.
by Steve | Jun 22, 2022 | Home Page Hero Slider, In the News
By Jack Jackson
June 21, 2022 | UM News
Since June 9, much has been made of the vote by Florida Conference clergy to reject a slate of 16 candidates recommended for provisional membership, an important step toward becoming an ordained elder or deacon.
Blame, both within the conference and on social media, is almost universally directed at the almost 30 percent of Florida clergy who agree with the denomination’s stated belief that practicing homosexuals should not be ordained. While traditionalists certainly prevented progressives from reaching the 75 percent threshold necessary for electing candidates, fault for all harm to the 16 candidates and the conference as a whole lies with the board of ordained ministry.
Boards of ordained ministry play a critical role in The United Methodist Church. They are almost the last stop in assessing a person’s call to ordained ministry.
Conference clergy and laity place a great deal of trust in boards to do their job according to the church law as found in the Book of Discipline. Candidates recommended by the board still face a final high hurdle: a 75 percent vote of approval by the conference clergy. This is the highest voting threshold in United Methodism. Nevertheless, in all my 28 years in the Florida Conference, I had never seen any candidate receive a vote against approval. The clergy’s trust in the board of ordained ministry in Florida has been implicit. Until this year.
Many of us were surprised when a few months before the clergy session, rumors began that two or perhaps three candidates identified as LGBTQIA persons. There would turn out to be three such candidates. Many traditionalist clergy, and even some progressive clergy, worried that the board itself was acting in willful disobedience to its appointed task of bringing forth candidates fit for ministry according to denominational guidelines.
Requests by traditionalists for a conversation about the candidates were rebuffed by the chair of the board of ordained ministry. Traditionalists, concerned that all 16 candidates might be rejected if they were only presented as a slate, as is the common practice, appealed to the bishop’s office for an individual vote. These requests were also denied. Tensions were high as the clergy session began.
Before the candidates were even presented, Bishop Kenneth Carter invited a senior retired deacon to speak. That clergyman made a passionate speech about the changing world and how the clergy needed to embrace all the candidates regardless of whether they met the Disciplinary requirements on sexuality.
Several speeches were then made for and against approval of the candidates. One speaker appealed for the candidates to be voted on individually so the 14 not in violation of the Discipline could be approved. That request again was denied. Ultimately a vote was taken on the slate of 16 with about 70 percent of the clergy approving, short of the required 75 percent. All of this took place with the candidates sitting in the sanctuary with the clergy.
Immediately, most clergy seemed aware of the pain being caused all the candidates, as well as the clergy in the room. Traditionalists and progressives spoke about the pain. Within a short time, a member of the board of ordained ministry came to the microphone, admitted he knew the candidates were in violation of the Discipline when he voted for them at the board meeting, and called for a reconsideration of the vote. After a long delay, two clergy who initially voted “No” agreed to the reconsideration and another vote was taken. Again, an individual vote on the candidates was rejected in favor of a slate.
Approximately 20-30 traditionalist clergy were absent from the second vote due to leaving the session for a Wesleyan Covenant Association lunch. Furthermore, just approved elders and deacons became eligible to vote. To the surprise of many, the second vote also fell short, with only 72% approval.
Everyone at the clergy session on June 9 was harmed. The 16 candidates were by not being approved after being led by the board to believe they would be. The progressive majority of the clergy were harmed by seeing potential colleagues rejected. The minority group of traditionalist clergy were also harmed by being asked to support a clear violation of their ordination vows — namely, to uphold the Discipline. But make no mistake, the members of the board of ordained ministry, not traditionalists, are responsible for the harm.
The board, in partnership with the bishop’s office, willfully broke trust with its Disciplinary obligation to identify candidates who meet The United Methodist Church’s requirements for ordination. The board took it upon itself to rewrite ordination requirements as its individuals saw fit, not as the denomination, or even the Florida Conference as a whole, had together discerned. As numerous persons from the bishop’s office reminded us during annual conference, the Book of Discipline has not changed. Yet board members acted as if they could change the Discipline by fiat. The clergy session rightly rejected this egregious overreach.
Due to the likely departure of hundreds if not thousands of congregations across the denomination over the next 18 months, The United Methodist Church will almost certainly change its position on human sexuality in 2024 or 2028. The members of the Florida Conference Board of Ordained Ministry simply could not wait. Instead, the board acted arrogantly and irresponsibly by forcing the issue prematurely. In the process, the board harmed not only the people they intended to help, but the entire conference and the whole denomination.
Jack Jackson is a Florida Conference elder and the E. Stanley Jones Professor of Mission, Evangelism and World Methodism at Claremont School of Theology. Beginning July 1, Dr. Jackson will be the Visiting Professor of Evangelism and World Methodism at United Theological Seminary. This commentary first appeared via UM News.
To read more about the Florida situation, UM News’ Sam Hodges posted this story.
by Steve | Jun 17, 2022 | In the News
By Carolyn Moore
June 17, 2022
Back before our denomination was actively pursuing the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation, a clergyman emailed asking me to share honestly about my experience as a woman connected with the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA). His tone was kind and pastoral, but I sensed that underneath, he really expected me to tell him that the public face and private reality of the WCA are two different things – and that I don’t sense the guys in leadership at the WCA really respect or listen to me.
This ordained colleague went on to share his concern for the tone of things, and to say he isn’t convinced by the rhetoric that the WCA is loving and compassionate. He asked about race, and about young people. He was most definitely a skeptic. It seems to be a common feeling among those who know more about what they don’t want than what they do.
The night this gentlemen wrote, I was in one of those places: tired, overworked, under-compassionate. Probably I’d had one too many of these conversations that I just don’t understand, so I wrote the guy back, and I want to share with you what I said to him for no other reason than I was sharing as honestly as I could. What follows is some of what I wrote:
“Here’s what I know: You’ve joined the whitest denomination in the country. Literally – except for the post-separation ELCA – the UM Church is the whitest, least diverse of all mainline denominations. We are more monochromatic than the African Methodist Episcopal Church! I’ll let you look up the Barna study on this.
“Stunning, isn’t it? So, to ask a renewal movement within the whitest denomination to somehow achieve greater diversity than the group it is trying to renew is a bit unrealistic. We are, well, us. That’s the pool we’ve been drawing from as we’ve begun this renewal movement. Even so, our council has eight African or African-American members, and five additional nationalities represented. We have worked hard to be better at this than the denomination we serve.
“You’ve also joined a denomination that in our country is notably progressive. The female clergy in the UM Church are by and large radically progressive. In my conference, for example, I can count three – only three – conservative women pastors. It’s lonely over here in Georgia. To ask a renewal movement within that organization to somehow produce a plethora of conservative women pastors who are ready and able to step up and lead is also rather unrealistic. Even so, ten of our council members are women. We have worked hard to be better at this than the denomination we serve.
“You’ve also joined a denomination of old people. I don’t know what your annual conference looks like, but mine is gray. Incredibly gray (as am I). To ask a renewal movement within that organization to somehow produce a whole lot of young conservatives who are bold enough to lead publicly – in other words, not afraid of losing their ordination so soon after getting it – is asking a lot. Even so, we have young adults on our council, but let me speak closer to home. On my own staff, four of our six are under forty and the average age in my church is 35. We are working hard to be better at this than the denomination we serve.
“Our whole effort is aimed at getting out from under a system that has produced an unhealthy culture with an entitlement mindset. The UM Church has produced a culture more concerned about percentages than holiness, and ironically that emphasis has only backfired. Our progressive UM Church is remarkably white and aging, with a terrible track record in its treatment of women.
“Can I say this to you as a colleague? I deeply hope as you make your choices that you personally invest yourself in the reclamation of solid Wesleyan theology and in the formation of a movement that is earnestly going after Kingdom values. Not quotas, but Kingdom. That’s what your life ought to point toward. That’s the kind of legacy worth leaving. Don’t let the culture define your terms, because what the culture has done has not worked.
“So now that I’ve preached a little, let me share my experience: I have served in the UM Church for 23 years and for much of that time have been largely anonymous in my conference. I’ve never been elected as a delegate and never served on a conference Board. That has been my experience in the UM Church.
“Meanwhile, my place in the WCA has been a source of great encouragement. I was among the first elected to the WCA council when it was formed in a room in Houston. I was elected vice-chair unanimously, and chair, surprisingly.
“Of all I’ve said, this to me is most important: The people with whom I’ve worked in the WCA have spiritual, emotional, and personal integrity. I have never once been in a meeting – of any sort, not public, private, or one-on-one – where women were disparaged, where minorities were discouraged, where same-sex attraction was spoken of in any kind of uncharitable way, where language was crude, where spirits were not humble. Never once. If it has happened, I haven’t been there. I have been unreservedly encouraged, and have only seen others encouraged. We’ve discussed at length how best to grow and encourage ethnic and minority groups in the next Methodism. We want whatever it takes to see Revelation 7:9 – (“there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb”) – become a reality.
“The fact is, there are very few certainties in this current crisis except one: we will change. We have changed, are changing, will change. I hope we won’t pick one another apart on the way to this new thing God is trying to birth out of our ashes.
“I hope something here has helped. It comes with my deep prayer that Deep will call to deep in your discerning prayers and give you direction. I commend the WCA to you. I am completely committed to this movement because I believe we who are in it are completely committed to welcoming and advancing the Kingdom of God.”
Carolyn Moore is the founding and lead pastor of Mosaic Church in Evans, Georgia. She is the chair of the Wesleyan Covenant Association Council. She is an author and blogs at artofholiness.com. Image: Shutterstock.
