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.
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.
by Steve | Mar 2, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Dr. Jack Jackson
Jack Jackson is E. Stanley Jones Associate Professor of Evangelism, Mission, and Global Methodism at Claremont School of Theology in California. Some of the opinions expressed in this analysis will be provocative to both progressive and traditionalist readers. Nevertheless, we believe that Dr. Jackson’s viewpoints should be read and discussed across the United Methodist connection.
As our May 2020 General Conference approaches, delegates have been offered a gift with the Protocol. It lays out a path of separation that traditionalists and progressives alike should support.
Advocates on both sides, as well as the few true centrists who remain, can certainly find fault in the Protocol, but there should be no mistake: this is the best solution for the United Methodist Church and the only one which, as Bishop John K. Yambasu (Sierra Leone), Janet Lawrence (Reconciling Ministries Network), and Patricia Miller (Confessing Movement) each argues, avoids denominational catastrophe.
Progressives should embrace the protocol for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, it delivers on progressive’s core demand, namely that the UM Church will ordain and marry LGBTQI+ persons. As the Rev. David Meredith argues, the protocol provides the provisions that progressives so desperately want to stop.
Some progressives complain that inclusion both in the U.S. and around the world will only be optional. Churches in the U.S. “may” opt to host gay weddings and clergy “may” choose to officiate, and annual conferences “may” ordain non heterosexual persons. Meanwhile central conferences around the rest of the world can decide how they will respond to gay persons.
But progressives should rest assured that the Protocol will profoundly shift the denomination’s theological emphasis, at least in the United States, towards a progressive vision.
For instance, while only a small percentage of traditionalists may leave at first (some traditional clergy and laity in their 50’s and older will choose to remain in the UM Church for relational and pragmatic reasons), traditionalist clergy and laity younger than 50 will begin to leave immediately. Even more important to progressives, current and future traditionalist seminarians and young people will leave in mass as they recognize that their vision of human sexuality is increasingly rejected at UM seminaries, Annual Conference Boards of Ordained Ministries, and post separation UMC (PSUMC) congregations.
The result of this departure of laity and clergy in the U.S. means that by the 2028 General Conference, if not 2024, the church will be thoroughly progressive and change its language on inclusion from “may” to “shall.” Churches will be forced to welcome gay weddings and clergy will be required to officiate gay weddings.
The protocol will result in a thoroughly progressive PSUMC. The church will not be a big tent and there will be no room for traditionalists, and little room for centrists by 2028.
A second reason progressives should affirm the protocol is that it will keep most, if not all separately incorporated UM Church institutions within the PSUMC. Already many UM colleges, hospitals, children’s homes, Wesley Foundations, seminaries, etc. are in active conversations regarding leaving the UM Church because of its stance on human sexuality. The vast majority of traditionalists are willing to forgo these institutions. But if progressives continue to fight, many of these institutions will discontinue their connection with the UM Church. On the other hand, if the protocol passes, these institutions will almost certainly remain in the PSUMC. Keeping these institutions connected to the PSUMC, institutions with billions of dollar in assets, is well worth the relatively small payment of $25 million the denomination will give to a new traditionalist movement.
Unfortunately, some have argued that because some progressive voices were not at the table the process was flawed and the recommendations must be rejected.
This is reckless thinking. The church has tried for five decades via large, representative groups to come to an agreement the larger church would embrace. Each effort has ended in unmitigated disaster for progressives. The only option was a small gathering similar to the one which created the Protocol.
Progressives will not get a better deal than the one outlined in the Protocol. Progressives can rejoice that they have won the conversation on human sexuality in the United States, but they have not prevailed in the global UM Church. In light of the precipitous decline in UM Church membership in progressive jurisdictions, progressives do not have time to wait in hope that the General Conference will one day give them everything they want. Progressives should take the deal as outlined in the protocol and move forward knowing the PSUMC will be a thoroughly progressive Wesleyan movement within the decade.
Traditionalists should embrace the protocol for different reasons.
First, the protocol satisfies traditionalists’ core desire, namely the freedom to connect as a movement with other Methodist communities of like mind on human sexuality. The new Methodist denomination will be one that includes members of the WCA but will also reflect the desires of a broader group of traditionalists who, for various reasons, are not members of the WCA. The denomination will have clear expectations for clergy, laity, and ecclesial leaders when it comes to human sexuality. No right minded progressive or centrist will become part of the new denomination and structures will be put in place to ensure missional cohesion on human sexuality. Missionally minded young traditionalist clergy, seminarians, future seminarians, and laity will embrace this new movement in droves over time.
Second, the Protocol allows traditionalist congregations to leave without an “exit fee” of one or two years of apportionments that previous plans have mandated. This is a major concession by progressives and would result in traditionalist congregations saving tens of millions of dollars, thereby removing a tremendous barrier for departing congregations.
Some traditionalists argue that the plan simply isn’t fair because it awards the institutional mechanisms and assets to the numerically smaller group of the global UM Church, a group that has lost every major vote at General Conference on human sexuality. This is a legitimate point, but traditionalists must ask what alternative they have and if they are really willing to keep up the struggle.
The reality is that while traditionalists have prevailed in the global conversation on human sexuality, they have lost it in the United States and have little hope of regaining the majority in the U.S. for a generation if not longer.
Traditionalists can keep on fighting but the resulting missional deadlock, disobedience to the Discipline, and church decline that has marked the UM Church for decades will continue. Episcopal leadership will become even more progressive since progressives are now the majority in each of the jurisdictions. As traditionalist bishops retire, traditionalist clergy will soon have no episcopal support. Even if traditionalists were to prevail in the conversation 25 or 50 years from now, the church they will inherit will have less functional institutional mechanisms and fewer assets. And most importantly, since many young traditionalist laity and clergy are already leaving the denomination, the UM Church in 25 or 50 years would almost certainly have fewer members.
Furthermore, the UM Church structure as currently designed has led to this untenable stalemate. There simply is no mechanism whereby traditionalists can “fix” a structure that permits disobedient bishops, Boards of Ordained Ministry, and clergy. The structure will allow ecclesial disobedience for decades to come and there is nothing traditionalists can do about it.
There is little evidence that traditionalists have the resources, energy, and commitment from future young clergy and laity to keep up the struggle for another generation. Traditionalists today would be wise to embrace the Protocol, despite its deficiencies, and work to create a new vision of Methodism in a new denomination.
All this said, a word of warning to progressive clergy and churches in traditionalist conferences and vice versa: you have your work cut out for you. The protocol enshrines a process that defaults churches and clergy into the majority view of an Annual Conference. Churches and clergy who differ from their Annual Conferences will need help and encouragement to navigate their way into a likeminded Annual Conference or new traditionalist denomination. The General Conference should make it as easy as possible for both progressive and traditionalist congregations to join a likeminded community.
There is no resolution that gives progressives, centrists, and traditionalists everything they want or think they deserve. The Protocol offers a mediated and political truce in the best sense of the terms, as the Reconciling Ministries Network, WCA, UMNext, Good News, UM Queer Clergy Caucus, and Confessing Movement among others acknowledge. Critically it offers both sides what they must have in order to form vital Christian communities in line with their visions of human sexuality. It is time for both sides to embrace a foundational principle of Protestantism in general and Methodism in particular, namely that missional faithfulness always triumphs over ecclesial purity and unity. It is time for both sides to embrace the protocol as a final act of grace towards each other as the only way forward.
Jack Jackson is E. Stanley Jones Associate Professor of Evangelism, Mission, and Global Methodism at Claremont School of Theology in California.
by Steve | Feb 21, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
The ordination of Bishop Francis Asbury by Bishop Thomas Coke. Art by Thomas Coke Ruckle, painter, (Drew University).
By Thomas Lambrecht –
As the details of the “Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation” become better understood, questions arise about how the Protocol of Separation would affect groups within the church. I have already looked at how it affects U.S. churches and the central conferences. Another significant group impacted by the Protocol will be clergy, including bishops.
For many clergy, the idea of separation causes great anxiety. Separation could affect a clergy person’s job, career, and livelihood. Clergy and bishops wonder if there will be a place for them in the denominations that exist after separation. Clergy wonder what will happen to their pensions and health benefits. This article attempts to think through these questions with the current state of knowledge. Without a crystal ball, however, it is impossible to project with certainty what will happen in the aftermath of any type of separation.
Process of Clergy Sorting
Where clergy will end up is relatively straightforward. Clergy are members of the annual conference. Therefore, by default, clergy would align wherever their annual conference aligns, whether the conference takes a vote or simply remains part of the post-separation UM Church by not taking a vote.
If a clergy person wants to align with a denomination other than the one their annual conference chooses, they may do so. They will simply need to notify the leadership of their current annual conference and the denomination with which they wish to align. Clergy wanting to align with a new Methodist denomination will need to satisfy whatever requirements the new denomination has for clergy transferring into that body. Undoubtedly, there will be some form of vetting process to ensure the integrity of the clergy who so align.
If a clergy person wants to remain in the post-separation UM Church when their annual conference or local church separates to align with a new denomination, they would need to notify their District Superintendent prior to the date of separation. The post-separation UM Church would be responsible for securing an appointment for that clergy person under the guaranteed appointment process of the Discipline.
If a clergy person wants to align with a new Methodist denomination, but their annual conference decides to remain United Methodist, they would need to notify their District Superintendent and the leadership of the new denomination. In the U.S., they would need to make that decision by July 1, 2021. In the central conferences, they would need to make that decision by July 1, 2022. Once the new denomination has approved the transfer, they could serve in the new denomination under its appointment process.
If both the clergy person and the local church decide to align with the same new denomination, it is hoped that the clergy person would continue to serve that congregation as part of the new denomination. If the local church chooses a different alignment from the clergy person, the new denomination would secure a new appointment for the clergy person under its appointment process.
If a local church votes to align with a new denomination after the clergy notification deadlines above, the clergy serving that local church would have 60 days to notify the relevant authorities of their desire to move into the new denomination along with their congregation. Otherwise, they would continue in the post-separation UM Church with their annual conference and receive a different appointment.
In the same way, retired clergy would remain by default in their annual conference, unless they choose to align differently. No matter with which denomination a retired clergy person aligns, their church pension payments would remain unchanged, administered by Wespath.
Candidates
Persons in the candidacy process in the UM Church may choose to align with a new Methodist denomination under the requirements set by that denomination. The legislation encourages new denominations to accept candidates at the point where they are in the process and not make them start over or redo work they have already done.
Appointments in Transition
Of great concern to most active clergy is the question of where they will serve after the separation. The post-separation UM Church is likely to continue a guaranteed appointment, at least until any follow-up General Conference that might make changes to the church’s polity and structure. It is unlikely that a new traditional Methodist denomination would have a guaranteed appointment. However, it is likely that there would be a shortage of clergy in the new denomination because there are many more progressive and centrist clergy than there are traditionalist ones in most annual conferences. There may be more traditional congregations than clergy to serve them, which means that most traditional clergy would have a church to serve.
Where both the pastor and the congregation align with the same denomination, it is anticipated that the clergy would continue to serve that congregation during the transition. After the transition, the appointment system adopted by that denomination, whether a post-separation UM Church or a new denomination, would govern how pastors are assigned.
Where the pastor and the congregation align differently, one option is for the pastor to receive a different appointment within his or her chosen denomination. However, if the current appointment is going well, another option would be for the pastor to continue serving that congregation during the transition until an appointment opened up in the pastor’s chosen denomination. Serving in such a transitional appointment different from the pastor’s preferred alignment would require the approval of the denominational leadership of both the pastor and the congregation. The pastor would also need to agree to abide by the requirements of the congregation’s denomination. In any case, the legislation cautions against abrupt changes in pastoral leadership.
Bishops
Active bishops would remain by default part of the post-separation UM Church. However, the bishop could choose to align with a new Methodist denomination and receive an opportunity to serve within that denomination, especially during the transition. Where both the bishop and the annual conference align with a new denomination, it is expected that the bishop would continue to serve that annual conference during the transition. Where the annual conference remains with the UM Church and the bishop chooses to align with a new denomination, the bishop could serve an annual conference in the new denomination whose bishop decided to remain in the UM Church, or the bishop could serve a newly constituted annual conference in the new denomination.
Likewise, retired bishops would remain by default part of the post-separation UM Church, unless they chose to align with a new Methodist denomination. No matter which choice they made, their pension payments would continue unchanged.
Financial Considerations
Since separation could affect clergy persons’ financial security, it is important to understand the impact of separation in this area.
The Protocol legislation requires local churches to continue paying their pastor, as long as that pastor is appointed to that congregation. The church would not abruptly stop paying the pastor if the pastor chose to align with a different denomination. All salary and benefits owed the pastor would be expected to continue until there were a change in appointment. Active bishops’ salaries and benefits would also be continued by whichever denomination the bishop aligned with. That is one reason why the legislation expects local churches that align with a new denomination to continue paying apportionments to the UM Church until January 1, 2021, or their date of separation, whichever is later, in order to cover these important obligations.
Retired clergy would continue to receive their pensions as before, administered by Wespath. Active clergy who align with a new Methodist denomination would have their pension shifted over to the program adopted by the new denomination, also administered by Wespath. They would lose nothing of their UM pension program prior to separation, but after separation their future pension contributions and benefits would be governed by the program of the new denomination. (Note that Wespath is proposing changes in the UM pension program that would change contributions and benefits going forward for those remaining in the post-separation UM Church.)
Health insurance for clergy is designed by each annual conference. So the health insurance benefit varies from one annual conference to another, both for active and retired clergy. Any new denomination would have to determine how it would handle health insurance, whether self-insured as an annual conference or participating in the programs offered by Wespath. Annual conferences that align with a new denomination may be able to keep their current health insurance program. All of these decisions would need to be made during the transitional period between General Conference and the inauguration of a new denomination (January 1, 2021, or later, depending upon when the denomination starts operating).
Clergy currently receiving disability payments would continue to receive them, no matter which denomination they aligned with. These benefits are administered by Wespath and are not tied to membership in the UM Church. Disability insurance and other benefits currently covered by Wespath would need to become part of the insurance program developed by any new denomination.
More detailed answers and explanations about how Wespath would handle the impact of separation on clergy may be found at this site.
There is no doubt that separation would be disruptive for many congregations and clergy. Every effort has been made in the Protocol legislation to minimize the disruption by not requiring votes and by providing for financial continuity for clergy. It is important for everyone to gain a clear understanding of the process that would be used in transitioning from the current reality into new denominations. The new denomination(s) will be working to set transitional policies in place in time for them to be shared broadly as annual conferences, local churches, and clergy are deciding on alignment.
As we move through the disruption, we need to be patient and gracious toward one another, treating each other as we would want to be treated, with respect and consideration. More importantly, we can move forward in faith, trusting God to supply all our needs, as he has promised. As we respond to the Lord’s leading in faithfulness, we can count on him to sustain and provide for us on this journey. We believe we are traveling through this wilderness in order to reach a better country, a place where we are able to operate freely as a church according to our convictions and faith.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Feb 17, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
United Methodist Central Conferences Around the Globe.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Now that the enabling legislation for the “Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation” has been publicly released, I am at liberty to share more fully the details of what it proposes. I previously wrote about how the process of separation would work for U.S. churches. This week, I want to hone in on the impact of a Protocol separation on the Central Conferences outside the United States. There are many intricacies involved in the various Central Conferences. This is not my area of expertise, and I would not presume to speak for them. However, I have spent extensive time over the past several years meeting with African leaders, as well as conversing with European and Filipino leaders. Based on what I have learned and what they have shared with me and others over the past six weeks, I can delve into some of the impacts of separation on the Central Conferences.
The United Methodist Church is a global denomination, with three Central Conferences in Africa, three in Europe, and one in the Philippines. About 40 percent of the church’s membership is in Africa, with an additional five percent split between Europe and the Philippines.
Process of Separation in the Central Conferences
The process of separation in the Central Conferences under the Protocol would be different from that in the U.S. at the request of the two bishops representing the Central Conferences on the mediation panel.
Unlike in the U.S., where jurisdictions have no role in voting on alignment, the Central Conference meetings could take a vote on whether to align with a new traditional Methodist denomination. By a two-thirds vote, a Central Conference could decide to align with a new Methodist denomination. A Central Conference that fails to reach the two-thirds threshold or does not vote by December 31, 2021, would remain in the post-separation UM Church. All the annual conferences in each Central Conference would automatically align with whichever denomination the Central Conference chooses.
Once a Central Conference has voted or the deadline date has passed, any annual conference in that Central Conference may vote to align differently by a 57 percent majority. For example, if the Central Conference votes to align with a new traditional Methodist denomination, an annual conference by a 57 percent vote could decide to remain part of the post-separation UM Church. On the other hand, if the Central Conference remained part of the post-separation UM Church, an annual conference could vote by 57 percent to align with a new traditional Methodist denomination. Any annual conference that fails to reach the 57 percent threshold or does not vote by July 1, 2022, would remain in the alignment of its Central Conference. All the local churches in each annual conference would automatically align with whichever denomination the annual conference chooses.
Once an annual conference has voted or the deadline date has passed, a local church could vote to align differently than its annual conference. The church council or equivalent leadership group in the congregation would have to decide whether to require a simple majority vote or a two-thirds vote to change the church’s alignment. At a church conference, all the members of the church present and voting could make that decision to align differently from their annual conference.
Unlike the process in the U.S., churches in the Central Conferences could not act early before their superior entity has acted. Central Conferences must act first, then annual conferences, and finally local churches. (Note that the failure to decide by the deadline is a decision.)
Property Considerations
Any property owned by a Central Conference would continue to be owned by that Central Conference in whichever denomination it aligns. Any property owned by an annual conference would continue to be owned by that annual conference in whichever denomination it aligns. Any property owned by a local church would continue to be owned by that local church in whichever denomination it aligns. There are no pension liabilities to worry about with the Central Conference Pension Plans, so that would not be an issue. Wespath would continue to administer the pension program for the Central Conferences in whichever denomination they align.
However, in a number of annual conferences outside the U.S., the annual conference owns the local church property. Where the annual conference owns and holds title to a local church property, the local church could not take its building and property with it if the local church decided to align differently from its annual conference. In such a case, the congregation could separate, but they would have to find a new place to worship.
Realistically, this means that in annual conferences that own the local church property, very few local churches will decide to align differently from their annual conference. For the most part, the annual conference will make the decision for all of its churches.
Unique Central Conference Concerns
One concern particular to many Central Conferences is the use of the name “United Methodist” and the cross-and-flame logo. The Indianapolis Plan and the Next Generation UMC Plan both allowed any new denominations that formed to use the name and logo with suitable modification to distinguish it from the post-separation UM Church. That is not the case with the Protocol. Any conference or church that aligns with a new Methodist denomination would have six months to change signage and remove the “United Methodist” name and logo from its material (excluding permanent or semi-permanent uses like building cornerstones).
Some parts of Europe already do not use the United Methodist name, but most do use the logo. The name and logo are widely used in Africa and the Philippines. Central Conference delegates who value the name and logo might attempt to amend the Protocol legislation to allow for continued use with modification. Alternatively, they may decide that, once the name and logo become connected with a U.S. church that affirms same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing gays and lesbians, the name might become a liability rather than an asset. Nevertheless, Central Conferences will need to wrestle with this issue.
Of even greater concern to the Central Conferences is the flow of money to provide for the church’s structure, ministry, and mission. Most of that money comes from the U.S. part of the church, while some comes from churches in Western Europe. Several million dollars a year help pay for bishop salaries, annual conference expenses, and even pastor salaries in some places. Millions more are given to support hospitals, schools, colleges, seminaries, and other mission work. How will the church and its institutions and mission be supported following separation?
The Protocol provides for ongoing support for Africa University. Other than that, it leaves the denominations in existence after the separation to resolve these issues of support.
If some Central Conferences align with a new traditional Methodist denomination, that denomination would need to plan to pick up the infrastructure costs of the church, like staff salaries, office expenses, and annual conference operating expenses where needed. Mission support could come through the building of partnerships between annual conferences in the U.S. with annual conferences outside the U.S. Long-term relationships could be built, mutual learning could take place, and support could flow to projects via these partnerships.
The post-separation UM Church is looking at a budget cut of 18 percent even before any churches separate. Financial support could decline by at least ten percent and maybe by as much as one-third. In that environment, either the post-separation UM Church would need to shift priorities in order to maintain support for Central Conferences, or it would need to reduce that support if the money is not there to sustain it.
For Central Conference churches that align with a new denomination, it is important to know that the Protocol provides that the new denomination can contract for services from post-separation UM Church agencies, such as General Board of Global Ministries and General Board of Higher Education and Ministry. Individuals and churches in the post-separation UM Church could continue to support mission projects in the Central Conferences, even if they are no longer in the same denomination. The same is true of individuals and churches in a new traditional denomination being able to support mission projects in Central Conferences belonging to the post-separation UM Church.
An additional concern is how financial support can continue uninterrupted during the transition. The Protocol provides that apportionments should be paid to The United Methodist Church through the end of 2020 in order to maintain that continuous support. The new denomination(s) that form will need to build systems of accountability and secure handling of funds in order to incorporate churches in the Central Conferences. They will have a bit longer to do so, since it is probable that most Central Conferences that align with a new traditional denomination will not do so until several months into 2021 at the earliest. In the meantime, it would also be possible to contract with GBGM to act as a funding conduit where needed.
Incorporating the Central Conferences into a global church reality presents a challenge with many details to figure out. However, the benefit of a global church far outweighs the challenges. In the years ahead, may we truly live into a global partnership of equals, supporting and encouraging each other, no matter which denomination we end up in.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Feb 7, 2020 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Dr. David W. Scott-
Today’s guest post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. It originally was posted on UM & Global (umglobal.org) and is reprinted here by permission. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott’s own and do not reflect the official positions of Global Ministries nor Good News. Dr. Scott is neither a lawyer nor an accountant, and thus the following should not be interpreted as legal advice.
As previously discussed here, here, here, and here, The United Methodist Church as a whole is not a legal entity capable of owning property or financial assets. Local church property (real or personal, tangible or intangible) is owned by local legal entities and held in trust for the denomination as a whole.
This trust clause applies to the property of all parts of The United Methodist Church, but local churches are in a unique position with regard to the trust clause for several reasons: ¶2503 of the Book of Discipline explicitly names the annual conference, which generally is a legal person capable of owning property, as having authority over local church property. Several other places in the Discipline also give the annual conference explicit powers regarding the sale or transfer of local church property or its release from the trust clause. ¶2509.2 gives annual conferences the authority to bring lawsuits to enforce the trust clause. All of these provisions add up to clear enforcement of the trust clause on local churches by annual conferences.
Thus, the trust clause as applied to local church property has generally stood the test in secular courts. While in some instances departing congregations have negotiated with their annual conferences to take assets, when the trust clause has ended up in court, annual conferences have almost always won ownership of the property of departing congregations. Incidentally, that’s true not just for the UM Church, but also for the Episcopal Church and other bodies that also have a trust clause in their church law.
As cut and dried as the trust clause may appear, there are facets to keep in mind when thinking through the sorts of conflicts and potential lawsuits that might arise over ownership of local church property.
First, while most people assume that the trust clause means that the annual conference owns local church property, that’s not technically true. The annual conference has authority over local church property, and local church property reverts to the annual conference if it ceases to be owned by a local UM congregation, but the annual conference is not the legal person who owns the church property.
Who technically owns local church property depends on whether a congregation is incorporated. Most sizable congregations are incorporated as 501(c)3 organizations, but many small congregations are not. This means that for incorporated congregations, the property is owned by the local congregation as a corporate entity. For unincorporated congregations, the property is technically owned by the trustees, who as humans are legal persons. In either case, property ownership is exercised in trust for The United Methodist Church. The owner(s) of local church property can’t do whatever they want with it; they must abide by the stipulations of the Book of Discipline.
One problem here is that most bankers, investment brokers, and real estate agents are not familiar with the intricacies of the Discipline. While it would violate the Discipline, it might be possible for local leaders to work with bankers, brokers, or real estate agents unfamiliar with the trust clause to sell or otherwise dispose of local church property without annual conference consent. Such action would violate the Book of Discipline and thus expose the local church and its leaders to lawsuits from the annual conference, but it might be harder for the annual conference to recover property that was already disposed of.
Of course, the exit provision passed by General Conference 2019 and any future exit provisions passed by General Conference 2020 reduce the chances for lawsuits between local congregations and annual conferences over control of property.
Second, it’s important to remember that local church property includes more than just buildings. The trust clause applies to all other property that a local church owns, from its hymnals to its choir robes to its sound equipment to its vans to its tableware. It also applies to all financial assets owned by a local church. Thus, the question of property ownership goes beyond whether departing congregations can continue to worship in their same building. Any or all of these items could be a point of conflict between a departing church and the annual conference.
Certainly, the church building itself (and perhaps a parsonage) would likely be the biggest point of contention, since that generally represents the largest chunk of a local church’s assets. After that, who cares who keeps the Sunday school books, right? Maybe, but maybe not.
Especially when it comes to financial property, local congregations may have significant assets beyond their building over which annual conferences may want to assert their ownership. And larger churches may have a non-negligible amount of property in the form of vehicles, equipment, books, supplies, etc. Annual conferences have an incentive to assert their right to this property, even if just to give themselves better leverage in bargaining with a departing congregation.
Again, exit provisions reduce the chances for lawsuits between local congregations and annual conferences over control of buildings, equipment, and any other property. It is therefore worthwhile to keep in mind the scope of assets that could be at stake in such lawsuits.
Third, it is worth noting the variety of local church financial decision-makers established by the Discipline. This array of decision-makers increases the chances for conflict over assets within the local church itself.
The Book of Discipline outlines property-related responsibilities for the charge conference, the board of trustees, the financial secretary, the treasurer, the finance committee as a whole, and, in cases where they exist, the permanent endowment committee and the directors of the local church foundation. Moreover, in multiple-point charges, there may be both local church trustees for the property of each congregation and a board of trustees for property owned by the charge as a whole.
The authority to make all decisions regarding property, both real and personal, is vested in the charge conference. Yet, to carry out its property and financial decisions, the charge conference relies upon the work of the board of trustees, the treasurer, the finance committee, and (if they exist) the permanent endowment committee and directors of the local church foundation. These individuals have access to and oversight of the property of a church. Thus, they might be able to direct this property to another church body (either another denomination or the annual conference) in defiance of or in absence of a charge conference decision, especially since charge conferences usually meet rarely.
Again, such action would violate the Book of Discipline and ultimately lead to lawsuits, but in an instance in which there is a lot of internal conflict within a church about that church’s continued relationship with the UM Church, there is the possibility for factions within the church to use control of church property as a means to achieve their preferred outcome.
Since this type of conflict would occur within a church, an exit plan would not necessarily mitigate it. Control of property within a highly divided congregation may actually become more contentious with the existence of an exit plan. Such a plan could make local property a prize to be fought for between local “leave” and “stay” factions, with each group seeking control of the property. Nonetheless, an exit plan that sets or allows a congregation to set a relatively high standard of agreement for exiting is likely to reduce internal conflict around that decision.
