Implications of Postponing General Conference

by Steve | Mar 30, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Thomas Lambrecht –

By now, I am sure you are aware that General Conference has been postponed until sometime in 2021. A date and place for the rescheduled conference has not been announced and may not be for a few weeks.

Beyond question, this was the right decision. With the spreading coronavirus making travel all but impossible, holding General Conference would also be impossible. We need to prioritize the lives and health of all concerned. Right now, our focus needs to be on ministry in our various communities, not addressing internal denominational issues.

Our hearts and prayers are with all those who are suffering from Covid-19 and with the people on the front lines of this destructive pandemic. As followers of Christ, we are being called to pray fervently, imagine new ways to remain connected with our local churches under the shadow of “social distancing,” and minister with compassion to those in need.

Dealing with Disappointment

As United Methodists who are concerned about a faithful future for a Wesleyan witness, we must also think through the implications of postponing General Conference.

Probably the greatest reaction to postponing General Conference other than concern for those suffering or threatened by the pandemic is a sense of disappointment. Many were looking forward to resolving the denominational conflict that has somewhat paralyzed the denomination, in order to move forward in a positive direction.

Traditionalists are eager to move into a more spiritually unified, theologically traditional denomination that can reconfigure itself to be more nimble and effective in ministry. Progressives are eager to rid the denomination of what they perceive to be unwarranted discrimination against LGBTQ persons. Both groups were primed and ready to support the Protocol for Amicable Separation. Many others are ready to be done with the conflict, regardless of their personal views. All will have to wait an additional year or more to move toward their preferred future.

The postponement of General Conference does not change the fact that our church is still in an irresolvable conflict. When the pandemic is over, the conflict will remain. In that sense, the momentum toward amicable separation will continue. The only way to end the conflict will still be to allow different groups in the church to go their separate ways.

In light of that fact, it would be inadvisable for local churches and clergy to prematurely separate from the denomination. There may be situations where local churches or clergy in a hostile and intolerant annual conference need to separate now for their own spiritual health and the wellbeing of their ministry. But for most, it will be possible to continue in the current circumstances for another year. I know for some clergy, the pandemic, postponement, and stock market volatility may necessitate a postponement of their plans to retire from active ministry. Where possible, it would be helpful for long-tenured clergy to continue serving their congregations to help them through this time of waiting and transition into a new reality in 18 months.

The delay in General Conference can actually be helpful in some ways. Both a new traditional denomination and a new “liberation”/progressive denomination can use this extra time to continue developing their structure. The fast approach of General Conference this May was forcing both groups to move more quickly than they were perhaps comfortable moving in trying to develop the skeleton of a new denominational structure.

Having the options for whatever new denominations will form more fully fleshed out will benefit all United Methodists as we move toward decisions on alignment after General Conference.

Dealing with the Nuts and Bolts

Apart from resolving our denominational conflict, General Conference is necessary for other reasons. The most pressing demands include passing a budget for the 2021-24 quadrennium and electing certain positions (including Judicial Council, University Senate, and Commission on the General Conference, among others). If General Conference does not meet, these necessary functions cannot be cared for.

In a recent commentary, the Rev. William B. Lawrence proposes that a skeleton General Conference meet sometime before the end of the year, perhaps with regional gatherings linked together by video conference. This skeleton General Conference could enact a budget and elect the persons necessary to meet the requirements of the Discipline, but pledge not to take any other actions.

While this is a common sense proposal, it conflicts with the General Conference rules that require a face-to-face meeting to do the work of the conference. The rules do not currently allow persons linked by video conference to act as one body. The only group that can change the rules of General Conference to allow the use of such technology is General Conference itself. And if General Conference cannot meet to change its rules, it certainly cannot meet via alternative technologies. Of course, any action taken by a skeleton General Conference would be tainted by the fact that all parts of the church would not be fairly represented. Persons elected and money allocated would not reflect the will of the church’s majority, but only those able to participate in the meeting.

With regard to the election of persons to particular positions, the problem might not be as severe as Lawrence imagines. While the Discipline mandates that a certain number of persons be elected to Judicial Council (for example) in certain years, and also mandates the length of term at eight years, it also says that the term expires at the adjournment of General Conference (¶ 2605). Since there is no General Conference in 2020, the terms of current Judicial Council members would not expire.

The requirements for electing members of the University Senate are even less stringent. Members are to be elected by the General Conference for the term of a quadrennium. The usual practice is that members of an elected body serve until their successor is elected. Since General Conference will not meet to elect a successor, the terms of individuals serving on the University Senate would continue. The same provisions apply to election of persons to other agencies and positions.

The most pressing technical requirement of General Conference is to pass a budget for the new quadrennium. The budget also includes a “base rate” or percentage of local church receipts that is the basis for apportionments. If there is no General Conference meeting, the church would technically be operating without a budget and with uncertainty as to the amount of apportionments.

It can be argued that, in the absence of a General Conference, the apportionment amounts would continue the same as in the current quadrennium. The General Council on Finance and Administration and the Connectional Table are empowered to make allocation of apportionments received. So even though there might not be a new budget beginning on January 1, 2021, apportionments could be collected on the same basis as before, with GCFA and the Connectional Table allocating the funds as they have in the past. This is not an insurmountable problem.

Fairness and Consideration

The bottom line in all of this is that the church can proceed to function in these extraordinary times without having a skeleton General Conference to meet in 2020. Leaders can plan and implement a meeting in 2021, allowing everyone to participate. It would be manifestly and embarrassingly unfair to have a full-fledged global denomination meet with only those able to attend a meeting in the United States. It would make a mockery of our connectionalism.

Our perseverance and patience are again being tested by the circumstances surrounding Covid-19 and the postponement of General Conference. By God’s grace, we will prayerfully meet that challenge, remaining faithful to Christ and the ministry he has called us to. As we pray for one another and minister to our world, may the light of Christ shine through us.

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

The Impact of Social Distancing

by Steve | Mar 20, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Tom Lambrecht –

We have a new phrase in our vocabulary: “social distancing.” In this time of the novel coronavirus, keeping a distance from other people can help stop the spread of the disease.

It is ironic to me that this virus has caused an extreme form of what our society has already been doing. In 2000, sociologist Robert D. Putnam wrote the book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Based on over 500,000 interviews, Putnam demonstrated that “we sign fewer petitions, belong to fewer organizations that meet, know our neighbors less, meet with friends less frequently, and even socialize with our families less often.”

Our society has become less socially engaged. I think the supreme example for me was watching a young couple eat dinner at a restaurant, each one buried in his or her own smart phone and not talking with each other. Even the things we do together, we no longer do “together.” It has been said that, in order to communicate with a teenager, you do not talk to them or call them on their phone, you text them (or is it message them on Facebook, or contact through Instagram, or …).

Now we are being forced into even greater “social distancing” from each other due to the coronavirus. Sporting events, school classes, and even church services are being cancelled across the country. We are no longer supposed to be in any gathering of ten or more people. And some parts of the country are telling their residents to “shelter in place” — that is, stay home except for essential errands.

Joni Mitchell captured what I am feeling with her 1969 song, “Big Yellow Taxi.” The refrain contains the line, “Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone?” We often don’t appreciate something we have until we don’t have it anymore.

I wonder if one way God might use the current crisis is to help us refocus on the value of human connection. The coronavirus is taking us to the extreme of what we have been doing as a society — distancing ourselves from each other. By taking away for a time all the opportunities for fellowship in person, perhaps we will become aware of what we are missing in our lives. Humans are made for personal connection. Some thrive on more connection, while others on less, but we all need it.

Maybe when this crisis is over, we will seek to rekindle the human connections that we have been missing. Worshiping together will be important. If we have to miss worship for a month, it may remind us how important corporate worship is for us, and we may be less inclined to “take a Sunday off.”

Prior to the virus outbreak, traditionalist Methodists had been brainstorming about the kind of characteristics that they were looking for in an emerging new denomination. One essential element is that we go deep in our connectional life, looking for ways to connect with others about what God is doing in our spiritual lives. John Wesley’s “class meetings” formed the basis of Methodism for over 100 years. It was where people talked about “how it is with your soul.” (When was the last time you had that kind of conversation?) Where people shared their struggles and triumphs, receiving the support, encouragement, and prayers of the others in the group.

This kind of “social engagement” is life-giving. It is essential to our spiritual growth in maturity. It is what Wesley meant by “social holiness.” There is no such thing as a “solitary Christian.”

Of course, there is another kind of “engagement” that can be prompted by this unique time in our lives. Not only are humans made for personal connection with each other, we are also made for connection with God. God himself is a “social connection” — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in eternal fellowship with each other. But God made us in his image, to be relational with each other and most importantly with him.

Now that there is no football, basketball, or baseball (or maybe even golf!) to watch on TV, perhaps we can take this opportunity to refocus on our connection with God. Maybe we can slow our lives down enough to spend more time with the creator of our lives, the one who brought us into this world and is preparing us for the next.

Thomas Paine began his 1776 essay “The Crisis” with the famous words, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” Times of adversity and challenge are a test. They test what we are made of, what we really believe, and what our life is built upon. These times are an opportunity to refocus on what is most important, to recheck and strengthen our foundation. What will these times demonstrate about our lives?

I worked with a youth leader who used to say, “These are the times when good testimonies are made.” What will be our testimony that comes out of this time of trial? Will we testify to the faithfulness of our loving Father, to a closer walk with our Savior? Will we testify to a rekindled desire to connect with others, to build deeper relationships with family and friends, to a renewed desire to go deeper in the faith with our brothers and sisters in Christ? Will “social distancing” become the new normal, or will we rebound to a deeper “social engagement?” Time will tell.

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

Broad Traditionalist Group Casts Vision for Future Denomination

by Steve | Mar 16, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Thomas Lambrecht –

A group of nearly 30 diverse United Methodist bishops, clergy, and laity -men and women, African-American, Asian, Caribbean, Caucasian, and Hispanic persons from every U.S. jurisdiction, and three central conferences -recently concluded a three-day gathering in Atlanta, Georgia, during which they explored ways to reach consensus about the shape of a new traditional denomination.

The meeting was convened by the Rev. Keith Boyette (president of the Wesleyan Covenant Association – WCA), Bishop Scott Jones (Texas Annual Conference), and Mrs. Patricia Miller (executive director of The Confessing Movement) in response to the “Protocol of Reconciliation & Grace Through Separation,” which proposes a separation plan for traditional-minded United Methodist congregations to separate from The United Methodist Church and form a new denomination. The 2020 General Conference will vote on the Protocol during its meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 5-15.

Following the Atlanta gathering, 28 of the attending leaders signed a vision document for a proposed new Wesleyan Methodist movement and released the following statement:

“Although no one yet knows what The United Methodist Church will look like following 2020 General Conference,

it is clear that our denomination is no longer unified in its

beliefs. Therefore, some sort of separation is probable. As such,

we felt it necessary to begin conversations about what the new

traditional expression of Methodism might look like.

“This gathering in Atlanta represents one conversation among many currently going on in the life of The United Methodist Church.

A statement was drafted, and ideas were shared about how to  proceed if the Protocol is adopted.”

The drafted statement and vision document for a new traditional Wesleyan movement, along with a full list of signatories, is available at http://NewWesleyanDenomination.com/.

The group that gathered in Atlanta was broadly representative, focusing on three groups: renewal and reform group leaders, traditionalists who are not part of a renewal group, and bishops – including three bishops from central conferences. Many people assume that a new traditionalist Methodist denomination would be “the WCA Church.” However, this broader group gathered to demonstrate that is not the case. The WCA is one stream that will feed into a new denomination. Other streams, including whole annual conferences, will also feed into the new church. Only the inaugural General Conference of a new denomination, including representation from all traditionalists wanting to join it, will finally determine the structure and polity of the new church.

“What a beautiful thing,” said the Rev. Dr. Jan Davis, Senior Pastor at Central UM Church in Fayetteville, Arkansas, “to be in a room with broad diversity, people from all over the world, from many different perspectives, yet we were solidly of one mind in our mission for a new denomination – proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord! It brought me to tears.”

Davis, a clergywoman who leads one of the fastest growing local UM churches in the U.S., and was one of the participants who has never aligned with any of the renewal and reform groups, added, “I want to be part of a clergy covenant that shares my core beliefs – a high Christology, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the authority of Scripture. I want to be in a system that holds one another accountable for preaching and teaching basic Christian doctrine and beliefs.”

The vision adopted by the group inspires a commitment to a new Wesleyan way of doing church:

God calls us to embrace a new day as the people called Methodists. Established in the faith entrusted to us by our forbearers, we discern the Holy Spirit reviving the Methodist movement in a new work. We are committed to God’s vision given to our predecessors “to reform the continent[s] and spread scriptural holiness over the lands.”

If the 2020 General Conference adopts the Protocol legislation, with one voice and a spirit of humility we intend to form a global Wesleyan movement committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures, and the work of the Holy Spirit in conveying God’s truth, grace, renewal, and sanctification to all people who repent and believe.

We are committed to being a people who covenant together around time honored core doctrines, ethics, and mission. We aspire to be a covenant community, watching over each other in love. We long to reclaim the Wesleyan genius of mutual accountability throughout our connection.

We will be a church that is truly global in nature, fully welcomes people of various ethnicities and women into every level of ordination and leadership, and is characterized by joy. We will be committed to the Christian faith as expressed for 2,000 years, the four-fold movement of grace, compassion, and a passionate desire for people to experience a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We will inspire growth in discipleship, holiness, and a commitment to service, mercy, and seeking God’s justice.

“We started working through some difficult and challenging issues that we all must address together,” said the Rev. Dr. Carolyn Moore, Lead Pastor at Mosaic Church in Evans, Georgia, and Vice-Chairwoman of the WCA Council. “And what encouraged me the most was our willingness to be open to the Holy Spirit. At one point, we just stopped, set the agenda aside, and prayed because someone shared the prompting of the Holy Spirit in our midst. That prompting, and the time of prayer that followed, propelled us forward.”

The proposed vision centers on “engaging people in lifelong, intentional formation as disciples” through spiritual disciplines and “communion and accountability with one another in the Body of Christ.” A church “deeply committed to prayer and dependence upon the Holy Spirit” would “reach out to the world at its points of deepest need through ministries of mercy and justice.”

The group is committed to “Episcopal appointment of clergy that practices true open itinerancy with enhanced models of consultation with congregations and clergy, ensuring equity in pastoral appointments for women and persons of varying ethnicities.” There was much discussion about the need to overcome historic patterns of racism and sexism in the church, and particularly in the appointment process.

The new church would be “passionate about planting new churches, revitalizing existing churches, and apostolic ministry” – going into uncharted territory with the Gospel and replanting a traditionalist Methodist church in parts of the U.S. and the world that currently lack it.

The group pictured a denomination that is a “nimble and less bureaucratic institution, continuously led by the Holy Spirit,” which is “more movement than institution.” At the same time, the church would “embody our global nature in every aspect of doctrine, relationships, structure, and church culture.” It would aspire to be a truly global church.

The new church would have “bishops elected for one 12-year term, rather than lifetime service” and “a global Council of Bishops consisting only of active bishops.” Bishops would be “elected, assigned, and accountable regionally, with clearly established means of global accountability.”

Annual conferences would work at “recruiting, developing, credentialing, and deploying lay and clergy leaders to equip the Church.” The main focus of annual conferences would be “resourcing local churches for effective mission.” They would “ensure that those who are currently Licensed Local Pastors are equal partners in ministry, with a pathway to ordination as elders and with voice and vote on all clergy matters within their order.”

These and other specifics may be found by reading the entire statement. It concludes:

Our covenant with God and each other will be renewed as we claim, teach, and live into a life-affirming confession of faith rooted in Scripture and our doctrinal standards. We worship God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We are sent to be disciples and to make disciples of Jesus Christ. And we are called to be the Body of Christ in the world, bearing witness to the transforming power of the Good News as we humbly, but boldly, strive to serve others in Christ’s name.

By the power of the Holy Spirit, this new traditional Methodist denomination is dedicated to fulfilling this mission. May we be a people of integrity, living out what we believe as the Church. May God grant us the grace and wisdom to grow into this Church so conceived!

I encourage you to read the entire statement. It marks a momentous step on the journey to a new Methodist denomination that is faithful to what Methodism has always stood for.

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

Is Structural Unity Mandatory for the Church?

by Steve | Mar 9, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter

By Thomas Lambrecht –

In a recent blog, Bishop Gary Mueller makes the case for yet another plan to resolve the conflict in The United Methodist Church. His “2 X 4 Plan” calls for two regional conferences in each part of the globe — Africa, Europe, the Philippines, and the United States — one traditional and one centrist/progressive in each area. He sees this as a way to accommodate “the 30- 40% of The United Methodist Church in the United States that is more traditional concerning human sexuality, but wishes to stay in The United Methodist Church.”

In the course of his argument, Bishop Mueller makes the statement, “The mandatory nature of this unity is expressed in John 17:20-24, when Jesus prays that his followers may be one as he and God are one.” But what does Jesus mean by this prayer for unity, and is belonging to a certain type of church structure required by Jesus’ prayer? Is any type of structural separation therefore contrary to God’s will?

If this is the understanding of Jesus’ desire for unity among believers, then we must frankly admit that every Christian alive today is living in sin, contrary to God’s will. The Christian Church around the world is structurally divided into Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox main branches. Both the Catholic and Orthodox branches have a few divisions in their branches. And of course, Protestants are divided up into thousands of denominations worldwide.

Methodism separated from Anglicanism in the late 1700’s. Anglicanism separated from Catholicism in the 1500’s. Methodism itself has experienced many separations throughout its history, notwithstanding the mergers of 1939 and 1968. The mergers have not reunited all the original branches of Methodism.

If structural unity is required of us as Christians, we should all rejoin the Roman Catholic Church and advocate for a reunion with the Orthodox Churches. To do anything less would be a violation of Jesus’ desire for us.

Biblical Separation

The Bible gives examples of separation between individuals and groups for a variety of reasons. One reason for separation is a practical one. Genesis 13 records the decision of Abram and Lot to separate from each other because the land could not support both of their flocks, and their shepherds were continually getting into fights. To avoid conflict, they separated.

Amos 3:3 asks, “Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?” Where there is no agreement on the destination (or perhaps no agreement on the traveling companion), it is impractical to go together.

Acts 15:36-41 records an instance of “sharp disagreement” between Paul and Barnabas due to differences in mission philosophy (or perhaps again disagreement over a particular traveling companion). They chose to pursue different directions.

United Methodism is experiencing conflict at the level that separation seems the only way to end the fighting. There is deep disagreement over the direction of the church, necessitating different parts of the church traveling in different directions. There is a deep difference in the mission philosophy of traditionalists and progressives, making them incompatible mission partners.

Is the Bible the divinely inspired word of God or a fallible record of human experiences with God? Is Jesus the eternal divine/human Son of God, or a human being with an extraordinary closeness to God’s Spirit? Was Jesus’ death on the cross necessary for the forgiveness and redemption of all humanity, or was it a case of divine “child abuse.” Did Jesus physically rise from the dead or did the memory of his life and teachings merely inspire his disciples to think he was “spiritually alive?” Did God “create us male and female for each other,” as it says in our marriage ritual, or did God create an infinite number of gender identities and sexual orientations that are all good? Is a sexual relationship outside of the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman sinful, or are such relationships between consenting adults to be welcomed and blessed? Are all people ultimately going to be “saved,” or must one “repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38), “receiving him” and “believing in his name” (John 1:12) in order to experience salvation?

I could go on listing examples of deep theological disagreement within our church. Ironically, our United Methodist doctrinal standards cover all these issues, yet many clergy and even some bishops fail to conform their teaching within the doctrinal boundaries our church has established. How can we continue as one church teaching many different and conflicting ideas, with the resulting theological confusion? We are already not united.

Is the “2 X 4 Plan” Realistic?

Bishop Mueller and others are well-intentioned in proposing this plan. There is pain and grief in considering separation from The United Methodist Church, including the loss of some personal history and some meaningful relationships. Change is hard, and the future uncertain. All who wish will have a voice in determining the future new traditional Methodist denomination, but none of us can say with certainty what it will look like. Only an inaugural General Conference will have the authority to stipulate how that new denomination will function. (Contrary to popular belief, it will not be a “WCA church.”) Some long to find a “middle way” between outright separation and forced unity (although the accuracy of Bishop Mueller’s estimate of “30 to 40 percent” of U.S. United Methodists is most certainly debatable).

One must ask, however, if the solution proposed in the “2 X 4 Plan” is any more faithful to Scripture than either of the alternatives? Under the “2 X 4 Plan,” each regional conference (traditional or progressive) will have its own Book of Discipline, so the church will be operating globally with eight different Disciplines. How is this structural unity?

Under the plan, the General Conference is supposed to create a “Global Book of Discipline” that focuses on doctrine, mission, and shared heritage. As we have seen above, however, our global church does not have doctrinal agreement and cannot enforce its own doctrinal standards.

The plan calls for nearly all the general agencies to become independent, so they would not remain part of the Global United Methodist Church. About all the global church would share is a small Global Book of Discipline, a General Conference, one agency (GCFA), and financial support for UMCOR, Africa University, and the Black College Fund. Oh, and the whole church would share the name “United Methodist” and the cross and flame logo. In reality, we would be “United Methodist” in name only.

One gets the impression that, in the view of the plan’s proponents, sharing the name and some small bit of structure allows us to be faithful to Jesus’ desire for “mandatory unity” in a way that the Protocol for Separation would not. If that is all that “unity” means, it is a very shallow thing indeed.

Practically speaking, it would be miraculous if the “2 X 4 Plan” were to pass and be implemented. The legislation to implement the plan has not been submitted to General Conference and has not been translated. This legislation would be every bit as complicated as the Protocol legislation, yet the delegates would undoubtedly not be able to review it in advance of Minneapolis.

Furthermore, the plan would require a two-thirds vote of the General Conference delegates and a two-thirds vote of all the annual conference members around the world. Besides the fact that this ratification would add two years to the process of resolving our church’s conflict, the consensus around the church now seems to favor separation, rather than another attempt to find unity where there is none. It would take a massive shift in the opinion of the church to move toward a supermajority support for this plan. If it passed General Conference but failed to achieve ratification in the annual conferences, we would continue to be locked in conflict for another four years — an untenable situation.

Real Unity

For centuries, the church has interpreted Jesus’ prayer for unity as desiring spiritual unity among believers, not structural unity of the church. Structural unity is based on deep agreement on the essentials of doctrine, the basic outline of how the church is governed, and the direction and nature of the church’s mission. Spiritual unity allows believers of different denominations to consider each other to be part of the Body of Christ and to work together cooperatively in areas of missional agreement. United Methodists do so all the time with Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Wesleyan Methodists of many different stripes.

Let us pursue true unity across the broad Body of Christ and not fall for the false ideal of “mandatory unity” based on some shared structure. Such structural unity across the whole Body of Christ is unattainable in today’s world. Chasing it would prevent us from realistically resolving the crisis in our church and would hinder our ability to engage in effectively loving God and our worldwide neighbors.

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