by Steve | Feb 15, 2022 | Front Page News, Home Page Hero Slider
By Thomas Lambrecht – In a series of six decisions handed down this week, the Judicial Council has brought greater clarity to the disaffiliation process enacted by the 2019 General Conference. Under that new ¶ 2553, local churches may vote to withdraw from The United Methodist Church by satisfying the following conditions:
- Payment of the 12 months’ apportionments prior to the disaffiliation date, plus an additional 12 months’ apportionments
- Payment of the local church’s pension withdrawal liability (the local church’s share of the annual conference’s unfunded pension liability), which varies in amount from one annual conference to another
- Vote of approval by a two-thirds majority of the professing members of the local church present at a church conference
- Vote of approval by a simple majority of the annual conference
By following these steps, a local church can withdraw from The United Methodist Church while retaining its buildings and property, being released from the Trust Clause. This process expires December 31, 2023, and cannot be used after that date (unless General Conference extends it).
Some annual conferences have added requirements to the above steps or otherwise encountered glitches with the process, which then prompted challenges to the Judicial Council for rulings. Those cases have now been decided in Judicial Council Decisions 1420 through 1425. Some bishops and annual conferences have been stalling the disaffiliation process while waiting for the clarity these rulings provide. Additional information may be found in this United Methodist News Service article.
Annual Conference Approval
Two of the current decisions deal with situations where annual conference approval was in question. In the aftermath of the 2019 General Conference that enacted ¶ 2553, the Judicial Council ruled in Decision 1379, “[T]he final decision concerning exiting local churches belongs to the annual conference as part of its ‘reserved rights.’” Although not in the language of ¶ 2553, the Judicial Council ruled that annual conferences must approve the disaffiliation of any local congregation by a simple majority vote.
The Alabama-West Florida Conference (Decision 1421) questioned why a local church was allowed to disaffiliate with its property prior to an annual conference vote of approval. Judicial Council ruled this was “unlawful.” However, since the property had already been deeded to the local church by the annual conference, “as a matter of Florida property law, the train has left the station, and we lack any jurisdiction to entertain challenges to the validity of the deed.”
In the North Georgia Annual Conference (Decision 1420), a lay member asked, “Since the Annual Conference must approve the final act of disaffiliation, can the Annual Conference not therefore set some of the conditions in the agreement when they do not conflict with 2553?” Judicial Council ruled that under ¶ 2553.4, “the terms and conditions for that disaffiliation shall be established by the board of trustees of the applicable annual conference, with the advice of the cabinet, the annual conference treasurer, the annual conference benefits officer, the director of connectional ministries, and the annual conference chancellor.” Since the trustees set those terms and conditions in negotiation with the disaffiliating local church, “The ratification of a disaffiliation agreement is completed by a vote up or down by the members of an annual conference but does not include the right to amend it.” Of course, the annual conference does have the authority to set policies for all disaffiliating local churches to meet. That leads us to the next series of decisions.
Annual Conference Authority
The bottom line of the Judicial Council rulings is that the annual conference has the authority to add additional requirements to the disaffiliation process for local churches. The New England Conference (Decision 1425) requires an extensive process of consultation by local churches prior to any decision to disaffiliate. The process has to last a minimum of eight months and include a study of the ministry impact of the church in its community and the feedback on the impact of disaffiliation by both community members and annual conference officials. This long and onerous process seems designed to discourage churches from disaffiliating. Due to the expiration date of ¶ 2553, churches in New England would have to begin the discernment process by the end of August 2022 in order to complete the process and obtain annual conference approval in 2023 before the paragraph expires.
Other annual conferences added financial requirements over and above what ¶ 2553 demands. The Arkansas Annual Conference (Decision 1424) requires repayment of any grants from the annual conference to the disaffiliating local church in the previous ten years. A recent statement by Bishop Farr of the Missouri Annual Conference affirms that a third year of apportionments must be paid to that annual conference. At least two other annual conferences require disaffiliating churches to pay the annual conference a percentage of the appraised value of their property.
In Decision 1425, the Judicial Council quoted provisions in ¶¶ 2553 and 1504.23 that “clearly suggest that the disaffiliation process established by the General Conference constitutes minimum standards, which do not preclude additional procedures and standard terms created by annual conferences, provided that the latter do not negate or violate the former.” In other words, the Judicial Council has ruled that annual conferences can impose whatever additional requirements they want on disaffiliating churches, as long as those requirements do not contradict what is in the steps listed at the top of this article.
Gracious or Punitive?
The potential result of this series of decisions is that annual conferences could impose onerous requirements on local churches seeking to disaffiliate. In some annual conferences, the pension withdrawal liability alone makes it prohibitive for most local churches to consider disaffiliation. That number could range anywhere from four to ten times the church’s annual apportionment. (Recent stock market growth has reduced the liability for many annual conferences.) Requiring additional apportionments, the repayment of grants up to ten years old, or the payment of a percentage of the property value only make disaffiliation under ¶ 2553 even more impossible for cash-strapped local churches.
Many bishops and annual conference leaders say they support treating traditionalists graciously in the process of separation. Some have said they want to ensure local churches can make the decision of where to affiliate that best meets the needs of that local church and its ministry. Some progressives and centrists have even displayed frustration that traditionalists do not begin separating now, rather than waiting for General Conference.
The requirements for leaving the denomination explained above demonstrate why, according to UM News Service, only 130 (out of 31,000) local churches have disaffiliated over the past two years. If UM leaders want to be gracious, it is in their power to do so by refraining from adding onerous requirements to the disaffiliation process. Actions speak louder than words.
The blank check the Judicial Council has given annual conferences to impose requirements and demand additional payments from departing congregations demonstrates even more vividly why the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation is needed. Under the Protocol, all payments by the local church go away. The local church is required to pay nothing to the annual conference, and its pension liability is assumed by the new denomination. In exchange for leaving behind hundreds of millions of dollars of general church assets, local churches are allowed to keep the buildings and properties that, in most cases, they paid for themselves. If progressives and centrists truly want a gracious resolution of our denominational conflict, the answer is to hold a General Conference and pass the Protocol.
If the Protocol is not enacted soon, in those annual conferences where additional onerous requirements are part of the disaffiliation process, some local churches may be better off walking away from their buildings and property and starting over. No amount of property is worth compromising the integrity of our Christian witness. For the first several centuries of the Church’s explosive growth, there were no church buildings at all. If we truly want to recapture the spirit and fervor of the New Testament Church, we should not allow ourselves to be unduly hindered by the need to maintain buildings and property, even though they can certainly be an asset to a church’s ministry. While it is painful to surrender buildings and cemeteries to which we have a deeply heartfelt attachment, our friends in the Episcopal Church who had to relinquish their buildings to start the Anglican Church in North America testify to the freedom that can come in focusing on new vehicles of ministry. In many rural communities in Africa, the church meets under a tree or in a community building. We may need to be similarly creative and adaptable.
I do not understand why some bishops and annual conferences think they can coerce people into remaining in The United Methodist Church through expensive and onerous disaffiliation requirements. Taking a punitive or heavy-handed approach only drives people away from the UM Church – it is not winsome. Local congregations may be prevented or discouraged from withdrawing with their buildings, but that does not foster loyalty among the lay members of the church. Those lay members can easily walk out the door and down the street to another church or abandon the institutional church altogether. (Many have done so in recent years.) Coercive leadership just accelerates the process of “dechurchification.”
These Judicial Council decisions give bishops and annual conferences the opportunity to demonstrate grace in the midst of separation and conflict. They can move forward with the Protocol and refrain from onerous and expensive disaffiliation processes. Will they pass the test?
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. Photo: Shutterstock.
by Steve | Jan 7, 2022 | Home Page Hero Slider, January/February 2022, Magazine Articles
The Rev. Rob Renfroe, president of Good News
By Rob Renfroe –
Welcome to the mission field! That may sound strange to those of you living within the United States, but it’s true, and it’s important for us to understand that we are living on a mission field. That reality should impact how we see ourselves and how we relate to those around us.
Because of the First and Second Great Awakenings and later revivals, our culture in this country has been greatly impacted by the Christian faith. Since the founding of the colonies, Christians in the United States enjoyed what you could refer to as “home field advantage.” From that time until the 1960s Christian beliefs and values were held by most of our citizens. There were skeptics in every time period, even some of our founding fathers, who did not affirm the Christian faith. But their views were a minority opinion with little impact on the masses and their beliefs. Most people, even many of those who were not professing Christians, viewed the church as an important part of American life and respected its moral teachings.
That has been changing and it will continue to change. According to Gallup research, “U.S. church membership was 73 percent when Gallup first measured it in 1937 and remained near 70 percent for the next six decades, before beginning a steady decline around the turn of the 21st century.” In 2020, church membership among Americans fell below 50 percent.
We now live in a culture that rejects traditional morality, openly attacks a belief in God, and condemns traditional Christians as judgmental bigots. Christians no longer have home field advantage in the U.S. Barring a miracle, we Bible-believing Christians will find ourselves more and more objects of ridicule, discrimination, and possibly persecution.
“The decline in church membership is primarily a function of the increasing number of Americans who express no religious preference,” reports Gallup’s Jeffrey M. Jones. “Over the past two decades, the percentage of Americans who do not identify with any religion has grown from 8 percent in 1998-2000 to 13 percent in 2008-2010 and 21 percent over the past three years.”
It’s important to understand that those of us who follow Jesus are not just people with a mission. We are people living on a mission field – and that should change how we see the people around us.
Go to a mission field and you don’t expect people to think or act like Christians. India, China, the Middle East. You know people there have different beliefs and different values. You expect them to see the world differently than you do. It doesn’t offend you that they do not believe or behave like Christians. In fact, you are moved by compassion for them, and you look for ways to help them come to know the truth of the Gospel.
That’s how we should see our current reality in the U.S. More and more people have never been in a church. Many have never heard enough about Jesus to accept him or reject him. What they “know” about Christians is what the culture has told them through movies, television shows, and the progressive websites and blogs they read. Of course, their values and their sexual ethics and where they look for happiness and meaning are different from those of us who know Jesus. Of course, they’re skeptical of our message and our motives.
Our unchurched neighbors and friends are deeply loved by God. Jesus said, “For the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10). They are lost from God and from his ways. A lost world has told them who they are, what to value, and how to live. And along the way, they have become lost from all that God desires for them.
The right response to people who are lost is not anger but compassion. The mission is not to condemn them, but to rescue them. We don’t wash our hands of them; we open our hearts.
Having our heartfelt values rejected in the public square is painful. We can become angry and bitter. We can resemble the old man who yells in frustration at the neighbor’s kids who are tearing up his yard, “Get off my lawn.” But when we understand we are on a mission field, we will not feel angry or threatened when we find people around us who believe and act differently. We will feel genuine concern, and we will pray for them and ask God to show us how to reach them.
The Apostle Paul lived his life on the mission field because during his lifetime that’s what the whole world was. Look how he told Timothy to respond to nonbelievers, even those who opposed him.
“The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will” (2 Timothy 2:24-26).
When I was in India, I visited a Hindu temple where I watched as a mother had her two sons kneel with her and offer a plate of fruit to an idol of one of their deities, Hanuman, whose features so resemble a monkey that Hindus refer to him as “the Monkey God.” I watched them worship a competitor, a rival to my Lord Jesus Christ. I saw their lips moving, asking Hanuman for blessing and protection and life. I did not feel anger towards that mother or her sons. My heart broke for them. They are lost in a lost world, seeking life and knowing of no better place to look for what they desperately need.
When you’re on a mission field, you don’t get angry at people for who they are or how they live. You weep for them. You feel compassion for them. You pray for them.
Whether they are Hindus in India, the people of Paul’s day who were without Christ, or those in our time who oppose the Gospel and reject all we believe, Paul tells us we must be “kind,” “not resentful” towards such people. We are to engage with them “gently” and never be quarrelsome.
We are on a mission field. The people who may bother us – how they look, what they think, who they have sex with, the values they live by – they need Jesus.
And the right response is not anger or revulsion – the right response is compassion and concern. Remember you are on a mission field and that will be much easier to do.
by Steve | Dec 22, 2021 | Front Page News, Home Page Hero Slider, In the News
Mary’s Devoted Heart
By Dick McClain
Growing up, I don’t recall having heard a sermon on Mary, the mother of Jesus. She did get dusted off every December for the Christmas pageant. But apart from her annual appearance reincarnated in the form of a budding young thespian, she hardly existed. Perhaps the folks in my evangelical Protestant circle felt that the Catholics went a little too far.
While I’ve never been accused of tilting toward Rome, somewhere along the line I began to suspect that we were being robbed by our silence about Mary. After all, the woman God chose to become the mother of our Lord just might have something to say to us today.
Which brings up another point. Not only did I not hear much about Mary; I didn’t hear much about any of the women of the Bible. When they were presented, it was only in the context of their being a model for women, never for men. The implication was that the male heroes of the faith – Moses, Joshua, David, Peter, and all the rest – were role models for all Christians, men and women alike. But the female heroes of the Bible – Deborah, Naomi, Ruth, and Priscilla – were only models of Christian womanhood.
I ditched that idea.
All of this leads me to suggest two things. First, Mary’s life is worth studying and emulating. Secondly, she is a good model for my entire family, both male and female.
In the first two chapters of Luke, there are fascinating insights into the quality of Mary’s life and faith. Her godliness was evident in a number of traits that we would do well to pattern.
Faith in God. Who comes to mind when you think of biblical examples of faith? I’ll bet you immediately thought of Abraham. Not a bad pick, considering the fact that he believed some rather unbelievable things God told him. But have you thought about the message Gabriel brought to Mary?
Mary was a teenage girl from a poor family who lived in an obscure village in a tiny nation which itself was under subjection to a foreign power. One day an angel came to her with a message from God.
She had found favor with God; she would give birth to a Son whom she was to name Jesus; her baby would be called the Son of the Most High and would sit on David’s throne forever; his kingdom would never end; and all this was going to happen without her ever having sexual relations with a man.
Now, be honest. Would you have believed that?
The remarkable thing is that Mary did! In fact, her cousin, Elizabeth, greeted her as “She who believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished” (Luke 1:45).
That’s real faith! She was willing to take God at his word, even when what he said didn’t square with anything her experience told her to be true. We too must choose to believe God if we are to be godly people.
A surrendered life. Perhaps you have read Mary’s story, sensed the unparalleled excitement of what she was experiencing, tried to put yourself in her place, and concluded, “Wouldn’t it have been glorious to be Mary!”
But stop and think about it. How could she tell Joseph, to whom she was already legally betrothed? Although they had not yet begun living together, they were considered married and could be separated only through divorce. Don’t you think the prospect of suspicion flashed through her mind? It must have. Under similar circumstances, most of us would have asked the Lord to find someone else to do the job.
But not Mary. Her answer to the angel was a model of submission. “I am the Lord’s servant. May it be to me as you have said” (Luke 1:38).
Why was she so ready to submit? Because she understood herself to be God’s servant. Maybe the reason we are so prone to resist God is that we see him as our servant. We’ve got it backwards. We need to come to see, as Mary did, that God is God and not just some spiritual genie that we hope will magically fulfill our every whim.
A life of unassuming humility. One thing about Mary in those Christmas pageants that always struck me was her willingness to go without complaint to the stable.
Not me! If I had been Mary, I probably would have said, “Listen here, buster! This baby I’m about to have is no ordinary child. He is God’s Son and your King. We deserve better than this!”
In Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor” (Luke 6:20). Mary was poor. We know that because of the sacrifice she and Joseph offered when they presented Jesus at the temple. Since they fell below the poverty line, they qualified to give a pair of doves or two young pigeons, rather than bringing the customary lamb (see Luke 2:24 and Leviticus 12:8).
I don’t buy into the notion that God loves poor people and hates rich folks, or that the impoverished are constitutionally spiritual, while the wealthy are hopelessly ungodly. But I do know that amidst our affluence we have adopted an inflated sense of our own importance, rights, and prerogatives. Consequently, we have concluded that the world owes us a lot; other people owe us a lot; and God also owes us a lot. We have a bad case of inflated expectations.
The answer is not quitting our jobs and signing up for welfare. But if we are serious about godliness, we, like Mary, must relinquish our rights, surrender our demands, and accept whatever God gives.
Faithfulness in spiritual disciplines. Unlike many people today, Mary didn’t treat spiritual things casually.
When it came time to present Jesus at the temple, Joseph and Mary headed for Jerusalem (Luke 2:22). Only after they “had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord” did they return home (2:39). And when Passover season came, they went up to Jerusalem “every year” (2:41).
The implication is that Mary wasn’t one to shirk her spiritual responsibilities. It’s easy for us to neglect spiritual disciplines. Average annual worship attendance in the United Methodist Church typically limps along at less than half the membership. Many Christians would recoil at the suggestion that we should actually part with 10 percent of our income. I’m reminded of a cartoon that pictured a church sign that read: “The Original Lite Church: Home of the 3 Percent Tithe and the 45 Minute Worship Hour – 50 Percent Less Commitment Required.”
Sincerely godly people don’t neglect the Word or worship, prayer or tithing. They don’t treat spiritual disciplines cavalierly.
Spiritual sensitivity. Read Mary’s song, recorded in Luke 1:46-55. It’s more than magnificent. It is the overflow of a heart that was accustomed to communion with God.
How did Mary come to be so spiritually alert? Luke gives us a clue.
Following the shepherds’ visit, we are told that Mary “treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart” (2:19). And when Mary and her family returned to Nazareth from their trip to Jerusalem for Passover when Jesus was twelve, we read that she “treasured all these things in her heart” (2:51).
Mary managed to carve time out of her busy life to ponder the deeper significance of what was taking place. She took time to pray, to meditate, and to reflect on what God was doing.
Most of us do not decide one day that we don’t want to be in tune with God. We don’t decide not to pray. We just let the priceless treasure of communion with God slip unnoticed through our fingers.
Spiritual sensitivity is not inherited, it is acquired through spending time with God. To borrow Terry Teykl’s phrase, Mary “prayed the price.” If we want to experience true godliness, we must do the same.
In trusting God, surrendering her life, giving up her rights, and learning to listen to the Spirit, Mary set an example for us all to follow.
Was she a super saint? No. Did she demonstrate sinless perfection? Not likely. But a devoted follower of God? You can be sure of it.
We can be the same.
Dick McClain is the former CEO of The Mission Society (now TMS Global). He is retired in Leadville, Colorado, with his wife Pam. This article originally appeared in Good News in 2003. Art by Kateryna Shadrina (Iconart-gallery.com).
by Steve | Mar 8, 2021 | Home Page Hero Slider, Magazine, Magazine Articles, March-April 2021
By Walter Fenton –
The Transitional Leadership Council, a 17 member team of theologically conservative Methodists, has released information on the formation of the new Global Methodist Church. The council said the new church will officially come into existence when a United Methodist General Conference adopts the implementing legislation for the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. Alternatively, if it becomes apparent that the leading bishops, centrists, and progressives who covenanted to support the Protocol no longer do so, then the council will consider bringing the new church into existence without delay.
“The primary mission of the Global Methodist Church will be to make disciples of Jesus Christ who worship passionately, love extravagantly, and witness boldly,” said the Rev. Keith Boyette, who serves as chairman of the Transitional Leadership Council. “Over the past year the council members, and hundreds of people who have informed their work, have faithfully and thoughtfully arrived at this point.”
With the announcement of the new church the council authorized the release of a comprehensive and detailed website (globalmethodist.org). It includes the new church’s mission statement, vision, information about its name and logo, a frequently asked questions section, and downloadable versions of the church’s Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline in English, French, Korean, Portuguese, and Spanish. The website clearly notes that “the Global Methodist Church is in formation” and will not officially launch until the Protocol is approved.
“It was a great honor to participate in such exhilarating work,” said the Rev. Philippe Adjobi, a member of the Transitional Leadership Council, a district superintendent in the Cote d’Ivoire Annual Conference and a General Conference delegate. “I believe the Global Methodist Church will fulfill the expectations and aspirations of local churches throughout Africa. They will appreciate focusing on what is essential: testifying to Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.”
Adjobi and the names of the other 16 members of the council – men and women from Africa, Eurasia, the Philippines, and the United States – are listed on the Global Methodist Church’s website. The list includes laity, clergy, and bishops who believe an amicable and orderly separation is the best way forward.
The special General Conference in 2019 proved to be as contentious and divisive as many people anticipated when a Traditional Plan reaffirming the UM Church’s sexual ethics, teachings on marriage, and ordination standards was approved. Progressive and centrist United Methodists in the U.S. denounced the General Conference’s actions and resolved to defy the global body vested with the sole power to speak authoritatively for the UM Church.
Within weeks, small groups of centrist, progressive, and traditionalist UM Church leaders, quietly and often haltingly began having conversations about plans for dividing the denomination. A group convened by the late Bishop John Yambasu of Sierre Leone and guided by the world renown mediator Kenneth Feinberg hammered out the Protocol and its implementing legislation. The 16 member team included leading UM bishops and representatives from the major advocacy groups representing centrists, progressives, and conservatives.
The Protocol team released its plan in early January 2020 and it quickly gained the sometimes hopeful and sometimes grudging support of United Methodists around the world. It appeared headed for likely passage at the denomination’s May 2020 General Conference.
In light of the Protocol, a group of theologically conservative UM Church leaders met in Atlanta in March 2020. The group included several traditionalist bishops, evangelical advocacy group leaders, and other clergy and laity who identified as theologically conservative. During their meeting, they nominated the members of the Transitional Leadership Council, assigning them the task of forming the new church.
“I am convinced the Global Methodist Church will be a vibrant, vital expression of Methodism in terms of its teachings and ethics,” said Dr. Bob Hayes, a Transitional Leadership Council member and Bishop in Residence at The Woodlands United Methodist Church in The Woodlands, Texas. “As a fourth generation Methodist I am excited by a fresh wind of the Holy Spirit where I see God doing a new thing! God is creating a church rooted in Scripture and the love of Jesus, and he is calling us to participate with him.”
At the time of the Transitional Leadership Council’s formation, no one knew the Covid-19 pandemic would result in the postponement of the UM Church’s 2020 General Conference. Despite the postponement of an in-person General Conference, the Transitional Leadership Council has been meeting almost weekly since March 2020. As is evident in its Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, the council has approved the Global Methodist Church’s core confessions of faith, hammered out a transitional governing structure, and adopted the new church’s name and logo. The council has emphasized fidelity to the historic teaching of the Christian faith, and a desire to be a truly global church.
“I believe a good number of ethnic congregations will want to align with the Global Methodist Church,” said the Rev. Kevin Ryoo, a council member and an elder in the Dakotas Annual Conference. “They long for a church which honors the Bible, stays within the traditional mission of Methodism, and keeps local church ministry as a first priority. I know Korean Methodist congregations have a strong passion for evangelism and mission.”
Boyette, who is the president of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, acknowledged that while the association has played a role in preparing for the new church, many other traditionalist leaders have been critical in the formation of the Global Methodist Church.
“Traditionalists do not march in lock-step,” said Dr. Leah Hidde Gregory, a Transitional Leadership Council member and a district superintendent in the Central Texas Annual Conference. “Some traditionalists have been wary of the WCA, thinking it was moving too fast and others believing it was moving too slow. It took a few meetings before I realized there were only three people from the WCA leadership on our council. It became obvious to me that the group who nominated us wanted to make sure all people who regard themselves as traditionalist, orthodox, conservative, or evangelical were represented on the Transitional Leadership Council.”
In the “Frequently Asked Questions” section of its website the new church states, “Women, like men, will be called to serve in the Global Methodist Church and will be entitled to serve at all levels.” The section also says, “As a truly global church the denomination will be ethnically and racially diverse and will insist on the equal treatment of all the church’s members.”
“I believe Methodism is on the cusp of another Great Awakening,” said Transitional Leadership Council member Cara Nicklas, an attorney and General Conference delegate from the Oklahoma Annual Conference. “The Global Methodist Church is the vehicle by which that will happen because we value a connectional, global church with doctrine and discipline that is not guided by our U.S. culture but is simply focused on bringing people into a deep and intimate relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
Walter Fenton is Vice President for Strategic Engagement for the Wesleyan Covenant Association and an elder in the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference.
by Steve | Mar 8, 2021 | Home Page Hero Slider, Magazine, Magazine Articles, March-April 2021
Members of a diverse group of bishops and other United Methodist leaders after reaching agreement on a proposal that would maintain The United Methodist Church but allow traditionalist congregations to separate into a new denomination. Photo courtesy of the Mediation Team.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
On February 25, the Commission on the General Conference announced that the 2020 General Conference – postponed once until August 29, 2021 – has now been postponed again until August 29, 2022. On the same day, the Council of Bishops announced it is calling a special session of the General Conference to meet virtually on May 8, 2021, to address technical issues that would allow the church to continue operating until the full General Conference can meet.
Notably, the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation is not currently on the agenda for the special virtual General Conference.
No Regular General Conference. The Commission made the expected decision that an in-person General Conference could not take place in 2021, due to the travel restrictions in place now and expected to remain in place for the foreseeable future. Travel by delegates from outside the U.S. – fully 40 percent – to attend General Conference will likely still be impossible throughout 2021.
A Technology Study Team met during January to consider the possibility of a virtual General Conference. After extensive research and conversations with representatives of the church outside the U.S., the team concluded that a virtual General Conference, even with a limited agenda, would not be possible because of issues related to time zones, reliable electricity and Internet service, travel restrictions, and the integrity of the voting process.
As one who promoted the viability of a virtual General Conference, reading the report of the Technology Study Team convinced me that it is not feasible with current technology during a pandemic. This decision is disappointing, and the situation is frustrating, but it was the right call.
The Special Session. The Council of Bishops proposes that the special session gather on May 8 for an extremely limited agenda. The first task would be to secure a quorum, in order for the special session to take action. In light of the above considerations, it is unlikely that more than a scattered few delegates from Africa or the Philippines could attend. It must be acknowledged that, despite the high value on universal participation by all delegates, this special session will mainly include U.S. and European delegates who have access to Internet technology. But this situation is unavoidable in trying to get some of the church’s administrative processes unstuck.
With the knowledge that many delegates could not participate in a deliberative General Conference, the Council of Bishops has limited the proposed agenda to twelve administrative items that it considers non-controversial. The virtual General Conference will also act to allow the voting to be done by paper ballots that would be compiled by mail and the results announced on July 13, 2021. The paper ballots would not allow any amendments to the above legislation. Delegates would simply vote yes or no. Although not all delegates could participate in the virtual General Conference, all 862 delegates could cast paper ballots on the proposed legislation.
What about the Protocol? Although the proposed agenda for the virtual special session of General Conference does not include the Protocol, the decision about separation requires urgent resolution. Many of the other decisions, such as the budget and the number of bishops to elect, depend upon how many churches and annual conferences will remain in the UM Church after separation. It would be better to make the decision regarding separation before needing to make all these other decisions. It is in no one’s best interest to prolong this decision. Deciding now would enable the UM Church and the new traditionalist denomination to begin moving ahead in ministry as we come out of the pandemic. Many are ready to act, and deciding now would open the door for churches that are ready to go in a new direction.
It is in the best interest of centrists and progressives that General Conference make a decision now regarding the Protocol. Once traditionalists start moving to a new denomination, it would allow centrists and progressives free rein to change the church’s position on marriage, sexual ethics, and other isssues at the 2022 General Conference.
The need to offer amendments to the Protocol is not essential. The mediation team negotiated the major terms of the Protocol based on compromise and give-and-take. Changing any of those major terms could jeopardize the carefully balanced agreement and throw the adoption of the Protocol into question. It would be better to adopt the Protocol as negotiated, with the implementation dates extended by one year, which would be possible under the plan of the special virtual session. The Council of Bishops could amend the call for the special session to include the Protocol. If not, the delegates – with a two-thirds vote – could add the Protocol to the agenda of items to be dealt with by the special session.
Hope for the Future. Meanwhile, the Protocol mediation team needs to provide leadership in continuing its support and promotion of the Protocol. The Reconciling Ministries Network and the Western Jurisdiction and its progressive bishops have recently reiterated their support for the Protocol, as has a broad group of traditionalists. With support across the spectrum, including from bishops, the Protocol can move forward as a positive way to amicably resolve the decades-long conflict in the UM Church. Freed from conflict, both groups could wholeheartedly pursue ministry according to their mission and convictions.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Mar 8, 2021 | Home Page Hero Slider, Magazine, Magazine Articles, March-April 2021
Rob Renfroe
rrenfroe@goodnewsmag.org
As you are probably aware, the Commission on the General Conference announced on February 26 that the 2020 General Conference has now been postponed until August 29, 2022. This is a second postponement, General Conference having previously been moved from May 2020 to August 2021, due to concerns regarding the COVID crisis.
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 consider a variety of issues, the most important of which is how we will conduct business as a church when we cannot meet in person.
United Methodist pastor and blogger Andy Bryan summed it up very well in a recent tweet: “I am a part of a denomination that needs to set a meeting to suspend our rules so that we can create new rules to dictate what we are supposed to do when we cannot meet to create rules.”
If that sounds confusing, it’s because it is confusing. And it’s confusing because we are a confused denomination. For fifty years many of our leaders – pastors and bishops – have confused the acceptance of nonbiblical theologies with openness. They have confused affirming behaviors contrary to the teaching of Scripture with giving grace. And they have wrongly confused the views of a postmodern, progressive culture with the values of God’s Kingdom.
Confused leadership creates confused organizations that create confusing plans that create more confusion – and more distrust. That’s why the Good News office (and the offices of all the orthodox renewal groups) has been flooded with the concerns of faithful UM pastors and laypersons who believe the additional postponement is nothing more than a ploy, the goal of which is to discourage traditional members to the point they will leave the church. And many, after being disappointed by the Council of Bishops over and over again in the past, are thinking this may now be the time to do just that.
We should give the General Commission on the General Conference some grace. The pandemic put them in a very difficult place. The Commission had to determine if a truly fair and representative General Conference could take place virtually, knowing that in many countries delegates might not have the same access to technology that we in the United States enjoy. And we should be grateful that the Commission announced that the postponed Conference will be scheduled in 2022, rather than leaving us without any idea when the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation will be considered.
Still, we are in a confusing place. Unless some clarity is given regarding our future, the results are predictable. Members will leave. Churches will exit (some already have as a result of General Conference 2019 and the original postponement of GC 2020). In states where the laws favor the local church over the denomination (and there are many) lawsuits will be filed by some congregations to leave with their property. The Wesleyan Covenant Association’s recent announcement of a new orthodox Wesleyan denomination, the Global Methodist Church, will increase the number of churches who are willing to depart the UM Church, even if they must fight their way out through the courts. And, of course, apportionments will decline, further exacerbating the denomination’s already precarious financial situation.
Without clarity about a way forward, the Wesleyan movement, whether in the form of a traditional expression of the Christian faith or in the remaining post-separation UM Church, will be harmed numerically, financially, and spiritually. In the midst of a global pandemic, as racial issues continue to divide our country, at the same time that more people in the U.S. are walking away from the faith than ever before – in other words, when those around us desperately need the hope of the Gospel and the witness of the church – a lack of leadership and clarity about our future will weaken our ability to minister to a hurting and needy world.
What needs to be done? Denominational leaders need to state clearly and explicitly that they support the Protocol and that they will do all they can to secure its ratification.
Some already have. The progressive Western Jurisdiction did so last fall. A broad group of traditional leaders, including bishops, pastors, and laypersons, many not associated with conservative renewal groups, reiterated its support of the Protocol in February before the postponement was announced. And Reconciling Ministries reaffirmed its commitment to the Protocol shortly after the delay was made public. Conservative and progressive leaders have spoken out. It’s time for others to do the same.
1. The team that negotiated and proposed the Protocol should make a joint statement that they are still committed to its passage with no amendments. The entire church was grateful that an agreement was reached by progressive, centrist, and traditional leaders that makes an amicable parting possible. Since that time, other proposals have been put forth, but none by a team that is theologically diverse and representative of the whole church. We need those who performed the arduous work of creating the Protocol to remind us why it is still the best and most fair way forward. We need them to reaffirm that in spite of other proposed options, they are still fully in favor of the Protocol.
2. Centrist leaders need to reaffirm their unequivocal commitment to the Protocol. Centrists on the Protocol team played a valuable role in its creation. But since that time, we have not heard much, if anything, from them as to why it is still the way forward. Progressive and traditional leaders have reiterated their support of the Protocol. It is imperative that those who claim to be at the center of the church do so as well.
3. The Council of Bishops must lead the way and be clear that it is committed to the Protocol, as proposed. Nothing would be more helpful in alleviating the distrust and the angst so many of our members are feeling as a strong statement by the COB that it endorses and will work for the passage of the Protocol. If we must wait until 2022 to vote on the Protocol, the Council could be the “calm and assuring presence” our bishops have talked about so often by assuring the church that they will use all of their influence to secure the Protocol’s ratification.
4. If the Council of Bishops fails to make a statement, traditional bishops should declare they are committed to an orthodox Wesleyan expression and that they will support the new Global Methodist Church. Whereas most progressive bishops have been very open in the past about their support of The One Church Plan and other more radical solutions to our current crisis, traditional bishops have been less willing to indicate which plan they support. They have believed that rather than being an advocate for a particular path forward, it was better and more in keeping with their role as a bishop to the whole church to explain clearly the various plans. That way their pastors and members could make an informed decision for themselves about the solution they thought best. We can appreciate the balanced approach of our traditional bishops. But it is now time to move from education to direction. Again, what we need is clarity – what do the traditional bishops believe, what will they do, and how will they lead if the Council of Bishops fails to do so.
There is talk of traditional delegates boycotting the special General Conference to signify their dissatisfaction that the Protocol was not included on the agenda. If successful, they could prevent a quorum for the Conference being reached and no business could be conducted. I don’t want that to happen. It will not serve the church well and it will only make traditionalists look small and petty. But it may be the route some will take if they believe support for the Protocol is waning.
There are also discussions of delegates joining together to add the Protocol to the agenda and voting on its passage. This would require two-thirds of the delegates agreeing to suspend the rules of the Conference. Am I in favor of this path? Yes. There is no reason that an up or down vote could not be held on the Protocol. The Conference could vote to act on it as is with no amendments. The Protocol has been widely distributed; we have had more than ample time to consider it; and if paper ballots work for matters to be addressed in the special Conference called for May of this year, there is no case to be made that they cannot be used for the Protocol. Leaders of all the major factions within the church have previously supported it and we all expected it to be passed this August. We don’t need hours of debate, quibbling over details, or dealing with everyone’s better idea. We can and should vote on the Protocol on May 8.
If the bishops and the members of the Commission on General Conference believe we should wait until 2022, then they must provide what the church needs. Clarity about their commitment to the Protocol. An assurance that if we wait until 2022, the Protocol will be passed. Reason to believe that even if we disagree on important issues, we are not confused about the way forward.
