The Contemporary Challenges of Leadership: Unrealistic Expectations

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

In my last post, I argued that The United Methodist Church is a complex system (more so than when it was created) facing a wicked problem. I indicated that this fact has implications for the role of leadership in the UMC, in particular that of bishops. In this post, I will argue that the nature of complex systems make leadership an attractive but ultimately flawed solution to the wicked problems that beset complex systems.

Leadership as an Attractive Solution
By their very nature, complex systems are difficult to control (since inputs do not lead straightforwardly to outputs), and wicked problems are difficult to solve. Furthermore, since complex systems include many actors, most of them will have very little influence over the system as a whole, making it even more difficult for most people to get the results they want from the system. Therefore, many people feel powerless in the face of complex systems, for instance, the global economy, big businesses, or government bureaucracies.

In such a situation, selecting the right leader for the system becomes seen by many as an attractive solution to the problems plaguing the complex system.

Selecting the right leader seemingly simplifies the complex system and its complex problems, and this is its main attraction. We just need to find the right person, and they will solve the problems of the system, goes the thinking.

Rather than needing to understand the complex system itself (which is often beyond the ability of even experts, let alone regular individuals), it is only necessary to understand the (usually limited) choices for leadership candidates. Rather than needing to figure out how to exert influence on the system (which is difficult for well-organized coalitions, let alone individuals), it is only necessary to use one’s power to vote for a leader.

All the better, this line of reasoning often goes, if the leader selected is somewhat antithetical to the system, if they promise to “shake things up,” create “disruption,” or “smash things.” And in order to do that destructive work, the leader should be given as much power as possible. The system is obviously not producing what it should, so doesn’t it need to be shaken up by a strong leader?

This leadership-focused solution to systemic problems also fits with cultural emphases from various cultures, whether it is Americans’ cult of personality or Africans’ tradition of “big man” leadership. The notion of a leader as a hero or savior is deeply rooted within many cultural traditions.

The wave of rising authoritarianism that has swept the globe over the past decade is an expression of how leadership is an attractive solution to complex problems. In many different cultural and political settings, people have elected leaders who have billed themselves as strongmen (and the gendered term is intentional) capable of bending the system to give their voters what they want.

Whether or not United Methodists support such political authoritarian figures (and probably some but not most do), the temptation to look to leaders as rescuers from the morass of wicked problems that bogs down the complex system of The United Methodist Church is still there.

Leadership as a Flawed Solution
But while leadership may be an attractive solution to the wicked problems of complex systems, it is also a flawed solution. Of course, one could point to the moral, ethical, and democratic failings frequently exhibited by authoritarian leaders, but even setting those significant concerns aside, there are real reasons why leadership alone is not a good way to address the problems of complex solutions.

First, while participants in a complex system may be eager to shift responsibility for problem solving onto a leader because of their own limited knowledge of and influence over that system, they often significantly overestimate leaders’ knowledge of and influence over the system.

Complex systems are difficult for leaders to understand, too, even given their additional vantage over and information about the system. Indeed, it is hard for any one person to really have a feel for all parts of a system and how they interact. Leadership in a complex system requires knowledge of many disparate areas of policy and procedure. Moreover, leaders are subject to the same limitations of wisdom, knowledge, and judgment as anyone else. And when leaders are sometimes chosen because they are from outside the system or its current elite, this can limit their understanding of the system even further.

Moreover, because complex systems are characterized by nonlinear relationships and by many different actors with many different motivations, complex systems are difficult to control, even for leaders. There are many opportunities for unintended consequences or for people to resist and obstruct what a leader wants to accomplish. While it many be easy for leaders to exert control over central elements of a complex system, that does not mean that directives will flow completely and easily to all components of a system, especially those farther from the centers of power.

These observations are true of bishops in the UMC just as much as other leaders of complex systems. There are many different areas of responsibility for bishops, and it is difficult to be an expert in all of them. Bishops are often limited in their knowledge of what is happening outside of their episcopal area or jurisdiction. Their powers are geographically and constitutionally limited. District superintendents, pastors, congregations, and agencies all have independent decision-making authority. Bishops can influence, but they cannot completely dictate. Even in Africa where bishops are held in higher regard, they are not complete dictators, and things can and do happen outside bishops’ control.

There are also limitations in the relationship between leaders and followers. The many-faceted nature of issues in complex systems means that for any given leader and any given follower, there will almost always be points of disagreement between them. While in some instances, followers adjust their views to reflect those of their leaders, in other instances, followers are left to decide how to relate to leaders whose work they very much support in some instances and very much oppose in others.

Furthermore, conditions including polarization, distrust, and anger at institutions can make people even less willing to follow leaders. If some group of followers sees a leader as “not my leader,” then they will work to oppose or undermine the work of that leader, further limiting the leader’s power. Even if loyal followers expect leaders to quickly deliver results on all issues, leaders can quickly go from heroes to villains if they fail to perform to what may be unrealistically high standards.

A Methodist Example
To see the attraction and the failure of leadership as a solution to the problems of complex systems, look at The United Methodist Church’s experience with the Commission on a Way Forward. The commission was formed after General Conference delegates, unable to solve the wicked problem of The United Methodist Church themselves, took the unprecedented action of asking the bishops to step in and intervene.

However, the bishops’ ability to do so was quite limited. They were able to convene a group to make recommendations to General Conference, but the bishops themselves were neither able to propose solutions nor able to adopt solutions proposed by others. The size of the group was even limited by financial calculations by GCFA beyond the bishops’ control. Moreover, no bishop has a complete understanding of the entire United Methodist Church and could not know in advance how the work of the Commission on a Way Forward would be received or what unexpected reactions or counteractions it would provoke.

Then, once the commission was formed, it became the target of criticism over a host of issues ranging from its composition to how its work was conducted. Such criticism reflected some genuine concerns, but it also reflected the polarization and lack of trust in the denomination. The commission produced a recommendation, which the bishops then revised, and then the recommendations from the commission and the bishops were rejected by General Conference in a decision that exacerbated rather than solved the wicked problem of the denomination.

In the case of the Commission on a Way Forward, appealing to leadership patently failed as a means to address the wicked problem of the complex system of The United Methodist Church. But I don’t think that was because the bishops made mistakes along the way. They may have made mistakes and thereby worsened the chances of the commission succeeding, but the basic problem was with the nature of the system and the limitations of a leadership-focused solution to its problems.

Fortunately, there are other potential solutions to the problems that beset complex systems. In my next post, I will look at communication and collaboration as potential solutions, ones that can improve the quality of leadership in addition to addressing problems.

Recommended Reading: Central Conference United Methodists on GC2020

Two initiatives by United Methodists in the central conferences to influence the proceedings of General Conference 2020 have recently been announced.

First, two presentations by Rev. Lloyd T. Nyarota on behalf of a new lobbying group, the Forum of Concerned Central Conferences United Methodists, were recently published on United Methodist Insight. This group includes an unnamed list of United Methodists from central conferences across Africa, in the Philippines, and in northern Europe. About half of the members live abroad, either in the United States or Canada. The group has been formed to advocate in advance of General Conference 2020.

The two presentations - one to the central conference bishops and one in the Philippines - lay out the group's basic premises: the proposals heading to GC2020 were written without substantial central conference input; it is time for United Methodists in the central conferences to lead; United Methodists in the central conferences want unity; and the Philippines Plan is the best way to achieve that desired unity.

Two observations are worth making about these presentations: 1. In much of what they are saying, this group is intentionally echoing and affirming the statements by the African and Filipino bishops; thus, these ideas have some currency beyond just this group. 2. Their support of the Philippines plan indicates that while US United Methodists have mainly been focused on the four US-drafted plans, the Philippines plan deserves to be considered as a fifth option, as there are people advocating for it. Indeed, as this blog has previously argued, Filipinos may play a unique role in resolving the current conflict in the church, making their plan and their concerns around unity worthy of study.

Second, a group of leaders from the central conferences has released a "Christmas Covenant" calling for continued unity in the denomination. (See also the associated UMNS story.) The covenant draws on theological principles of all as children of God, ubuntu, and bayanihan. That two of these three principles are drawn from cultures outside of the US is itself significant. Using these principles, the covenant opposed the separation of the church and division of its assets; supports the formation of a US regional conference; and supports legislative equality across regions of the church. Thus, the main goal of the Covenant - continued unity with greater regional autonomy - is similar to the goals laid out in Rev. Nyarota's presentations.

The signers of the Christmas Covenant include General Conference delegates and reserve delegates, district superintendents, seminary leaders, and other leaders from across the central conferences. While the signers of the Christmas Covenant include more people than those mentioned by Rev. Nyarota in his presentation, it is the same group behind both, according to Rev. Hilde Marie Movafagh, a group member and Covenant signer.

General Conference 2019 changed how many think about the church and motivated many to be more proactive in shaping the future of the denomination. US United Methodists would do well to recognize that United Methodists from the central conferences are among those so motivated.

Correction: An earlier version of this article indicated that the Forum of Concerned Central Conferences United Methodists was an overlapping but separate group from the signers of the Christmas Covenant. Thanks to Rev. Hilde Marie Movafagh for setting the record straight.

Recommended Reading: US Regional Structure Proposal

The Connectional Table has put forward a proposal to General Conference 2020 (or perhaps more accurately, two proposals) to create a new regional structure for the United States. Pages are available online continaing an announcement of the CT's intention to do so, its announcement of having done so, the text of the legislation, a narrative description of the rationale for the proposal, and frequently asked questions about the proposals.

The CT proposes a two-stage process: first, the creation of a standing committee of General Conference that would be the U.S. Regional Committee, tasked with screening all GC legislation that primarily impacts the US. In this regard, it would be a cognate to the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters.

Then, eventually the U.S. Regional Committee would be replaced by a U.S. Regional Conference, separate from General Conference, that would take responsibility for making changes for the US context to adaptable portions of the Book of Discipline, as central conferences do in their contexts. Depending on how quickly the church moves to the second stage, the first stage may not be necessary for long.

This legislation is interesting for two reasons:

First, although its origins predate the called General Conference in 2019, it is usually talked about as one of the "plans" for GC2020 to take up in the wake of GC2020. That is not really correct, as it is neither a comprehensive plan for the future of the church nor a response to GC2019. But it is tied to or in harmony with some of the other plans for the church, including the UMC Next plan and the Filipino plan.

Second, this proposal seeks to change the long-standing, US-centric structure of the UMC by creating a structure for the US that would parallel some of the powers of the central conferences. Note that the legislation still leaves the US in a separate class of structure by itself; the US does not become a central conference. In part this is necessary because of the continued existence of jurisdictions under this proposal. Thus, the US still remains a unique, if somewhat less priviledged part of the church under this legislation.

A main reason (beyond the issue of jurisdictions) for calling the proposed US structure a "Regional Conference" instead of a "Central Conference" is because of sensitivities to the term "central," given the racist history of the segregated Central Jurisdiction. Certainly it is laudable to want to make a clear statement against racism and a clear break with the church's racist history.

Yet, if it is not okay to have Americans in a structure with the name "central," because the Central Jurisdiction was a separate structure for black and brown people, then why is it still okay to have separate structures for black and brown people with the name "central" in other countries? Why not change the name for areas outside the US, too? Do we as a church think that echoes of second-class segregation are okay for those outside the US? It seems to me that we must commit ourselves to anti-racist practices not just domestically, but internationally as well.

Aside from the issue of the name, while the proposed legislation does not make the US function in quite the same way as the rest of the church, it seems a step in that direction and an important way to give the US some more missional flexibility in adapting to its context. The proposal is thus well worth a read.

Will Filipinos Resolve the UMC’s Three-Way Standoff?

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
 
As I explained in a post last week, the UMC is currently locked in a three-way standoff among US centrists and progressives, US traditionalists, and Africans, in which none of the parties is able to achieve their goals in the church, but none of the parties is willing to walk away. Since a standoff is a deadlocked state, it is not clear how this conflict will be resolved at GC2020 or beyond.

There are perhaps four possibilities for how this conflict will develop:

1. The situation isn’t resolved. The conflict and the deadlock continue, at least for the near-term future. Perhaps in another 4-8 years, the situation will have changed such that the situation will be resolved, but until then, the conflict will simply continue, likely escalating in the meantime.

In many ways, because of the deadlocked nature of a three-way standoff, this is actually the most likely scenario. A standoff will only be resolved if the goals of one party significantly changes, if one party is able to gain a tactical advantage, or if something disrupts the system from outside. In all other scenarios, the standoff simply continues.

Of course, there are costs to continuing the standoff: both US parties lose members and financial support in greater numbers because of the conflict, and the conflict guts the boards and agencies, which Africans would like to preserve.

Yet since these costs will come in incremental amounts, it is possible that incremental losses will be more acceptable to all parties than accepting a sudden and total loss.

2. The outcome of GC2020 changes the calculus for one (or more) parties, leading them to decide that they are actually willing to walk away from the UMC. This is more likely if some sort of exit provision is available to whatever party decides they’re willing to leave.

Practically, this is likely to be US centrists or US traditionalists, who may decide that they are better off walking away, even with some sort of loss, than they are continuing in an unwinnable conflict. Indeed, there are some within both the centrist/progressive camp and the traditionalist camp that have already indicated their willingness to walk away from the current system. Those voices are likely to grow louder and more numerous if GC2020 does not resolve the conflict in some way.

Africans, by contrast, have an added incentive to stay at the table in that their position politically in the denomination is strengthened every quadrennium with the addition of more General Conference votes. Thus, if no party leaves the UMC, Africans gradually realize their goal of greater voice in the denomination, though it would still be a long-term process to translate more votes into more control over agenda-setting.

3. US centrists and US traditionalists come to agreement on dividing the church and join forces to do so over African objections. There is a sense among US centrists as well as US traditionalists that the current conflict in the church cannot continue. Thus, it is possible that these two groups could unite around a plan of division.

The current US delegate majority means that such a plan could be passed despite strong objection from the central conferences IF US delegates were overwhelmingly in favor of it AND it required no constitutional amendments.

However, given the low level of trust between US traditionalists and centrists and the multiplicity of plans for division out there, getting overwhelming consensus among US delegates seems highly unlikely. Far more likely is that Americans are unable to agree about which division plan to support.

Moreover, while most plans are trying to accomplish the division of the church without constitutional amendments, Africans could with just their own votes call for judicial review of any plan by having at least 30% of delegates ask for it.

It is hard to say what Judicial Council would make of any of these plans, but in general, Judicial Council has been resistant to major changes in the system of the UMC, making it possible that such a plan for division could be voided by the Judicial Council, even if supported by an overwhelming majority of US Americans.

4. Perhaps the most intriguing possibility is that the Filipinos determine the outcome by successfully advocating for a regional restructuring of the church.

While Filipinos are often lumped in with Africans and Eastern Europeans in terms of UMC sexuality politics, the Filipinos are don’t have quite the same set of goals or reasons to not walk away as Africans or Eastern Europeans, thus making them somewhat of a wildcard.

There are a wider range of opinions on sexuality in the Philippines, and the issue plays differently in Filipino secular society, even as the majority in the Filipino church remains traditionalist in their understanding of sexuality.

Moreover, the church in the Philippines is less financially dependent on the current structures of the UMC than the church in Africa or Eastern Europe. While I’m sure they would like to continue the boards and agencies, they may be more open to structural changes.

And with 52 votes, they may have a large enough block to swing a vote by siding with one of the three other blocs.

The Filipino bishops have issued their own statement, praising the unity of the church as an important goal. But even while they call for continued unity, they also advocate for a changing of structure into regional conferences that would maintain authority over “witness, mission and ministry” in their own contexts. It’s not clear what exactly this means, but it is possibly an indication that Filipino bishops are willing to grant US centrists and progressives their wishes on LGBTQ inclusion within the US.

If so, then Filipino bishops might be able to unite both Africans, because of their shared concerns for church unity and similar views on sexuality, and US centrists and progressives, because of their desire for unity and their willingness to allow regional adaptation, behind the Filipino plan. In short, they may be able to serve as an intermediary between the deadlocked parties that provides a new option.

Of course, the Filipino bishops’ statement is short on details, and it is remains to be seen whether US Americans or Africans take it seriously, since it will come from outside of both of those contexts. But the Filipino bishops’ plan may just be the best chance for resolving the UMC’s three-way standoff that doesn’t involve one or more of the parties slowing bleeding away.

Recommended Readings: Central and Southern Europe Study Group Process

Previous UM & Global updates on United Methodist in Europe after General Conference 2019 have omitted the situation in the Central and Southern Europe Central Conference. Here's a quick rundown of how things have unfolded there:

At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Central Conference in March, there were tense discussions about the widely varying opinions about gay marriage and gay ordination held by leaders within the Central Conference. In the light of this division, the Executive Committee approved the formation of a study group to investigate possible scenarios for future relations among the constituent annual conference.

A press release issued just prior to the second meeting of the study group last week (the first meeting was in June) clarified the stakes for the central conference of the possibility of structural changes. As the press release stated, "If positions within the Central Conference remain as they currently stand, a separation would be inevitable. However, each of the resulting sub-entities would no longer be big enough to be organized as a full standing central conference with the right to elect a bishop. This was a new discovery also for Bishop Streiff. In light of the planned election of his successor in 2021, it attracted attention and threw a spotlight on the importance of the pending decisions."

The process remains on-going, with a final report by the study group expected to be delivered to the Central Conference Executive Committee next March.

With, Not About, the Central Conferences

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

During General Conference 2019 and since then, queer United Methodists and their allies have had an important slogan: "with, not about."

This slogan indicates that The United Methodist Church should not talk about LGBTQ+ persons in a way that does not include them in the conversation. Instead, the church should talk with them when discerning matters related to their lives so that their perspectives and insights can inform the whole body's decision-making. This commentary by Jorge Lockward gives a good introduction into the problems that arise when the church talks about without talking with.

A quick review of mission history also shows many of the problems of talking about, not with. Missionaries who sought to impose their cultural understandings upon potential converts without seeking to understand the world and the gospel through the eyes of others often did much harm and were much less effective in sharing God's good news. Those missionaries who were most successful and most beloved by the people among whom they ministered were those who were willing to talk with, not about, native peoples and to learn from and be transformed by them.

Thus, this principle of "with, not about" follows important missional insights from the last century. I have written elsewhere about how mission is a conversation about God's good news, where those conversations take place in the context of relationships across boundaries. Conversation is never one-sided. A conversation about the good news that God has for LGBTQ+ persons is a conversation that must involve them and be informed by their understandings of what is good and how God brings about newness in the world.

Conversation does not presume that one side's pre-existing views will predominate. It is instead a space for each side to learn from and be informed by the other. Ideally, this process of mutual learning will allow God to create something new through that interaction reveals God's goodness in a way that goes beyond the ways that any one party understood at the beginning. But that transformation cannot happen if not all parties feel like they have been heard in the conversation.

Thus, the principle of "with, not about" is a good one and should be affirmed in its usage for the LGBTQ+ community. Yet it should also be extended beyond its present usage.
If it is important to include LGBTQ+ persons as marginalized people in conversations that directly impact their lives and their place in the church, then when we are having conversations that directly impact the lives and place in the church of other marginalized groups, we must have those conversations with and not just about those groups.

In particular, in discerning the future of The United Methodist Church, we must have conversations with, not about, persons in the central conferences.

The possibility of breaking apart the UMC is an issue that directly impacts the lives and the place in the church of members in the central conferences, whose views and voices have traditionally been marginalized in the church. US United Methodists must talk with, not about, those in the central conferences regarding what our relationships will look like in the future, how we can be the church together, and what God is saying to us as a group at this moment.

Note here that I am advocating that we talk about the nature of the relationships we have. I am not saying that pre-existing central conference views on sexuality should predominate. Sexuality is one issue that US United Methodists need to hear more from central conference sisters and brothers, in part so that our understanding of their concerns and perspectives can go beyond stereotypes and charicatures, but it is a part and not the whole of the conversation we need to have.

The real conversation we need to have together is what our mutual relationships will and should look like in the future. There have been several plans that have already come out proposing one way or another of splitting The United Methodist Church. From what I can tell, all of these plans have been drafted by US Americans with the impacts on US Americans as their main concern. To my knowledge, none of the plans thus far have been significantly informed by talking with United Methodists in the central conferences. The plans address the status of those in the central conferences, but in a way that is much more about than with.

This is not an acceptable way to try to discern the future of United Methodism for several reasons. First, it violates the ethical and missional principles set forth in the slogan of "with, not about." Second, from a practical perspective it is likely to fail. Central conference delegates are not likely to vote for any plan that they do not think takes them or their interests into consideration, and no plan is likely to pass without significant central conference support.

The principles of "with, not about" the central conferences is why I'm eagerly waiting to see what comes out of the group led by Bishop Yambasu. That seems to me to be one of the few conversations about the future of the church right now that is following the principle of "with, not about" the central conferences.

Yet whatever form it takes, for United Methodists to figure out a future, even a future of division into multiple bodies, it is crucial that those conversations happen with, not about, all those impacted by such significant decisions - LGBTQ+ persons and those in the central conferences both.

Recommended Viewing: Hilde Marie Movafagh on the Divide over LGBTQ Issues in the UMC in Europe

Rev. Hilde Marie Movafagh, the rector of the United Methodist Seminary in Oslo, made a presentation at the Post-Way-Forward Gathering of UM Scholars last week in Dallas entitled, "The Iron Curtain is Back: The United Methodist Church in Europe in the aftermath of GC2019." The presentation provides an overview of the differences in thinking on the place of LGBTQ persons in the church between Western and Eastern Europe and the resultant tensions within the UMC in Europe. The 15 minute-long presentation is an excellent overview for anyone wanting to better understand how the fallout of GC2019 is affecting United Methodism in Europe.

American Money and the Future of Global United Methodism

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

Having laid forth in my last post some (possibly) better estimates by region of the level of internal giving and the amount of US support allows for some more specific comparison of funding received by central conferences from the US vs. funding central conferences are able to generate on their own.

This comparison then gives a sense of the magnitude of possible decreases in funding that central conferences could face and the scale of the decisions that they would have to make in the face of funding cuts from the US. I will here examine two scenarios: What would happen if all US subsidies were to stop through complete separation from the current denominational system, and what would happen if US subsidies were to decline by a third within the present system?

Western Europe
In Western Europe, a complete separation would certainly be felt. It would represent a loss of several million dollars in funding. That is perhaps 20% of the amount the region is able to generate internally for connectional ministries.

Such a reduction would lead to noticeable cutbacks and would force indigenous leaders to choose which programs to continue. Nevertheless, it would not devastate ministry, nor would it prohibit the region from continuing any form of ministry, and travel expenses would be an easy cut if separated from the denominational system. A 1/3 reduction within the present system would have smaller effects, though travel expenses would need to be preserved.

The Philippines
Subsidies within the Philippines are perhaps three or four times the internal connectional giving capacity, which would lead to significant effects if completely ended. Certainly, health, education, disaster response, service, and other ministries supported by US dollars would be affected, and some ministry programs would end. Filipino bishops might also have to take a pay cut.

Yet the Philippines has several educational and health institutions that already operate extensive fee-for-service programs and thus would be able to continue, even without outside support. These ministries would not end, even without US support, though they might face challenges in launching new programs or upgrading facilities and equipment.

Because of these fee-for-service programs and internal giving capacity, a 1/3 reduction within the current system would result in substantial cutbacks and some lower-priority programs being closed, but it would allow for high-priority work to continue.

Africa
The subsidies Africa receives are perhaps 8 times as much as their internal capacity for connectional giving, though out of all the regions, I am least certain what Africa’s internal capacity actually is. Thus, complete separation would be devastating and would effectively end or impact many forms of ministry beyond local churches. Bishops would need to survive on substantially reduced salaries, though given the high level of episcopal salaries relative to average salaries in their countries, there is room to cut.

Most evangelism in Africa happens through indigenous resources, except for Global Ministries support of mission initiatives in some newly-entered countries Thus, church growth and evangelism, at least within countries of existing United Methodist presence, would like be little affected by the end of outside support, except perhaps in the mission initiatives. Moreover, Africans have shown a capacity for charitable giving by local congregations, especially for ad-hoc needs and programs with low capital and administrative costs. These forms of ministry would likely continue, even with the end of outside support.

African schools and hospitals do generate some money through fees for service, but it is not clear if all of them could survive on these alone. Quite likely, a complete cessation in US support would end large-scale health and service ministries in Africa, especially those that rely upon substantial capital in the form of buildings and equipment. Colleges and universities with popular secular programs tend to be money-makers for the church (in Africa and elsewhere) and could continue. Primary and secondary schools are much less lucrative and therefore more likely to be impacted.

A 1/3 reduction in support would also significantly impact these large, institutional ministries and significantly reduce the number and/or scope of them. Many such ministries could probably continue under such a scenario, though to do so, African United Methodists would likely turn to more government support (at the expense of some United Methodist control) and fee-for-service arrangements.

Eastern Europe
For Eastern Europe, the amount of subsidies is perhaps 10 times as much as their internal capacity for connectional giving. Even more so than Africa, complete separation would be catastrophic and would effectively end most forms of ministry beyond local churches. Churches in Eastern Europe would even be challenged to continue to support bishops and district superintendents without outside help.

A 1/3 reduction within the current system would mostly affect educational, service, justice, and evangelism ministries. Indigenous leaders would need to choose among these competing priorities, with some types of ministry being halved (or worse) to preserve others.

Conclusion
Since health ministries directly save lives and poverty-reduction, sustainable development, and educational ministries have an indirect but significant effect on the length and quality of life, decisions about the future of US support for central conference ministries are ethical decisions. They directly impact the lives of tens of thousands of people throughout the world.

The decisions that US United Methodists, from traditionalist to centrist to progressive, will make about the funding arrangements they establish with the central conferences in whatever the next iteration of Methodism is will thus have real consequences, and dramatic cuts will cost lives among the poorest and most marginalized globally.

Of course, there are also strategic and ethical questions about continuing to foster a system of dependency rather than empowerment. Yet a unilateral and sudden end to US subsidies of the central conferences is not the appropriate way to end dependency.

Admittedly, in any scenario for the future of United Methodism, the amount of money from the US for connectional ministries will be less than it is now. Some reduction in US subsidies for ministry in the central conferences will be an economic necessity, given membership trends in the US.

Nevertheless, having created the current system of dependency, US United Methodists have a moral obligation to fellow United Methodists in the central conference to work with them to decide together how to plan for a sustainable economic future for those ministries most important to people in the central conferences. To do anything less would be for US United Methodists to show disregard for the lives and the humanity of those who are different from them.

Recommended Reading: Post-GC 2019 Updates from Europe

As previously reported, the actions of General Conference 2019 raised questions about the future for United Methodists in Germany, the Nordic-Baltic Episcopal Area as a whole, and Denmark and Norway specifically within the Nordic-Baltic Episcopal Area. All of these areas have created groups to generate proposals for the future of the United Methodist Church and ministries with and by LGBTQ persons in these countries.

While the total number of United Methodists in these areas is small, these efforts are significant, as they show United Methodists from several cultural settings other than the US trying to grapple with how to balance affirmation of LGBTQ persons by the majority and preserving unity among United Methodists of a variety of opinions.

Since most annual conferences in those areas have now met for 2019, some updates on the processes underway in these areas are available.

Germany
All three German annual conferences discussed the results of General Conference 2019 and affirmed the work of the roundtable that the Germany Episcopal Area church leadership council created to explore possible futures for the UMC in Germany. News articles (in German) on those discussions are available for the East Germany, South Germany, and North Germany annual conferences.

The roundtable met for a second time in July and identified three possible structural approaches to differences of opinion over the place of LGBTQ persons in the church. Two would re-organize the Germany Central Conference to create separate organizations within the central conference for conservative churches. All three would allow progressive German Methodists to ordain LGBTQ persons and perform gay weddings. A report and news article (both in German) provide details.

Nordic and Baltic Episcopal Area
Reflections by Bishop Christian Alsted (in English) written after most annual conferences in his episcopal area give a good sense of the variety of responses to GC2019 in the Nordic and Baltic Area. They also provide some details on specific actions undertaken by Denmark and Norway.

The Nordic and Baltic Episcopal Area will have its own roundtable process to discern its future, with a report to be given at the 2021 Northern Europe and Eurasia Central Conference. An update on the roundtable (in English) included information on participants and process. An update from the UMC in Norway (in Norwegian) provides a few more details on process.

Denmark
In a series of votes, the annual conference in Denmark showed overwhelming support for the full inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the church. The Danish annual conference also approved creating a commission that will bring suggestions to the 2021 Denmark Annual Conference about how to fully include LGBTQ persons in the life of the church. A report about the 2019 annual conference (in Danish) provides details.

Norway
Despite notable differences in opinion, the Norway Annual Conference used a consensus decision-making process to adopt a consensus proposal that called for full inclusion of LGBTQ persons, respect for the minority of Norwegian United Methodists with differing views on this matter, and as much continued unity as possible. A working group of eight people will develop a report for next year's annual conference, laying out proposed actions to achieve these goals. A report on the annual conference (in English) provides more details, as do an announcement (in Norwegian) of those on the working group and a letter from the cabinet (in Norwegian) issued after the annual conference.

On the Uses of Law in the UMC

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

I am trained as a historian. Since codes of law are one of the main types of historic artifacts that have survived from the remote past, historians spend a lot of time thinking about laws and specifically about the relationship between law and behavior. The consensus is that laws should be seen not as records of what people actually did but rather what those in power who wrote the laws wanted people to do. As we know from our experiences today, people break laws all the time, in a variety of ways and for a variety of purposes.

Even if laws do not represent what all humans always do, laws can still influence behavior in one of two ways. First, they can set standards for behavior that some people then willingly adhere to because they want to act in harmony with the standard out of a basic human desire for social conformance. Second, they can set penalties for misbehavior the motivate people to behave in a certain way out of fear of those penalties, whether or not they are naturally inclined to aspire to behave according to the group standard.

For this second, penalty-based type of behavioral influence to work, there must be a high enough likelihood of penalties being enforced and those penalties must be meaningful to the person experiencing them. People must also be acting in a rational, self-reflective fashion rather than committing a "crime of passion," where they are motivated by present emotion or other factors that preclude self-reflection, for this type of behavioral influence to work.

This historical reflection on the uses of law has been helpful to me in interpreting the Traditionalist Plan, especially now that we know its final form following Judicial Council review.

The UMC has had proscriptions on the ordination of queer people and on clergy performing same-sex weddings for some time. Yet it is clear that these church laws are increasingly ineffective in influencing behavior among boards of ordained ministry and clergy generally in the first way: by setting standards that people will be internally motivated to follow for the sake of conforming to group standards.

Thus, the Traditionalist Plan sought to require stricter and more mandatory enforcement of penalties and to make penalties more severe and thus more meaningful to clergy who would experience them. Traditionalist leaders determined that penalties as structured and enforced were insufficient to prohibit behaviors they opposed and thus it was necessary to revamp the penalty system.

The Traditionalist Plan also sought to set more rigid standards of action for boards of ordained ministry and for bishops (the reasoning being, I suppose, that bishops would be more motivated to follow group standards than rank-and-file clergy) and to increase enforcement of penalties against bishops, using both strategies to try to influence the behavior of the bishops.

The Judicial Council essentially allowed the more rigid standards of action for boards of ordained ministry, bishops, and those involved in hearing complaints against clergy (Petitions 90032, 90036, 90043, 90044, and 90045). It also allowed increased penalties for clergy performing gay weddings and then convicted by a trial court (Petition 90042).

What the Judicial Council largely rejected, however, were the provisions of Traditionalist Plan that would have required a particular approach to enforcement of laws regarding homosexuality. Certifications that ordinands, boards of ordained ministry, and annual conferences will enforce LGBT exclusions were ruled unconstitutional. The ability of the Council of Bishops to impose penalties on its members without right of appeal was ruled unconstitutional.  Instructions to boards of ordained ministry and cabinets on how to carry out their enforcement of laws were ruled unconstitutional. The only element related to enforcement that was declared constitutional was allowing appeal if complainants thought the laws had not been followed.

What seems clear at this point is that Traditionalists have the legislative power within the church to set laws but not the constitutional power to require enforcement of those laws.

Thus, in annual conferences with progressive and/or centrist leaders who are uninterested in enforcing these laws, it will continue to be possible for clergy to disobey the laws regarding performing gay marriage and for boards of ordained ministry, clergy, and bishops to disobey the laws regarding the ordination of queer people, all without risk of penalties actually being imposed.

Yet here is where the first way in which laws influence behavior comes back in. In the present situation of the UMC, it is possible that laws as group standards would influence people's behavior, not by motivating them to conform to the group's standard, but by motivating them to leave the group. Portions of the UMC that are not interested in conforming to the UMC's ever more strongly worded standards regarding the place of LGBT people in the church, could choose to leave, even if they are able to continue within the UMC without fear of penalties. In essence, people could desire to leave to avoid the sense of cognitive dissonance and identity mismatch they perceive between themselves and the group, even if the group norms didn't directly impact their behavior.

Thus, remain and resist will continue to be a valid option for many within the UMC, but the desire for progressives and centrists to leave grows with each more forceful reiteration of the church's Traditionalist stance.

Will the Future of the UMC Look Like CIEMAL?

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

While General Conference 2019 was a divisive experience and the legislative results hotly contested, the one thing that everyone seems to agree on in its aftermath is that The United Methodist Church cannot continue in the same form it has. Our present ecclesiological system is unable to respond adequately to the challenges of our life together, and it is necessary to find new ways of being Methodist together, or quite likely, apart from one another.

It is entirely possible that if the UMC splits, the remaining parts would have no relation to one another. Yet there are many who do not want to give up on our global connections even while there is some form of separation. How then can these connections continue?

Robert Hunt, in a recent blog post, asserts that "true unity is found only in the world-wide mission of the apostolic church," but sees such an understanding of unity as compatible with "a global Methodist Church made up of autonomous annual conferences."

What would such a global Methodist Church look like? One possibility is that it would look a good deal like CIEMAL, El Consejo de Iglesias Evangélicas Metodistas de América Latina y el Caribe (the Council of Methodist Churches of Latin America and the Caribbean).

CIEMAL is an organization that brings together fifteen autonomous Methodist churches. It "acts as a convener, guide and director of the service and the testimony of Latin American Methodism."

The member denominations of CIEMAL are entirely autonomous. They are responsible for their own doctrinal standards, worship guidance, clergy credentialing, and structures of authority and accountability. They also each have internal structures for joint mission and ministry and for shared fellowship among their members.

Yet the denominations of CIEMAL recognize that they have something to gain through the joint mission, joint ministry, and mutual fellowship provided by the wider body. CIEMAL does such things as promoting coordination between member bodies, facilitating fraternal exchange among member denominations, mutually training cross-cultural missionaries, recognizing and supporting newly-forming Methodist churches in the area (such as Columbia and Venezuela), resolving conflicts between Methodist bodies (as in Venezuela), and engaging other Methodist bodies around the world (such as the Methodist Church in Britain). All this happens through a Program Commission, a Council of Bishops, a four-person Executive Committee, and an occasional General Assembly.

CIEMAL was formed in the late 1960s when United Methodist Church annual conferences in Latin America were becoming autonomous but wanted to avoid becoming insular and instead maintain some connection to one another and The United Methodist Church, which participates in CIEMAL through Global Ministries.

If The United Methodist Church breaks up into two or more autonomous bodies, there could still be a role for some organization to play in facilitating conversations between members of these bodies, coordinating mutual mission and ministry work, training and sending missionaries, and supporting the creation of new Methodist churches in areas around the world. Such an arrangement could provide current United Methodists with enough space from each other through autonomy without surrendering the global sense of mutual compassion and fellowship that at best characterizes our international body as it is.

Recommended Readings: Nordic & Baltic UMC forms a roundtable on a way forward

The Area Group of the Nordic and Baltic Council of the Northern Europe and Eurasia Central Conference met on March 29 and 30. At that meeting, they unanimously approved the creation of a roundtable for the sake of "seeking a foundation for the future of the Nordic and Baltic episcopal area that includes as much unity and as much missional strength as possible."

If that language sounds familiar, it's because it draws on the purpose statement for the Commission on a Way Forward for the entire UMC. In essence, the Nordic and Baltic Area is attempting their own, regional rather than global Commission on a Way Forward, one aimed at building "a consensus on one proposal for the future of the Nordic and Baltic area" rather than a majority vote on the future of the UMC as a whole.

While the Nordic and Baltic Area has some advantages in this effort that the UMC as a whole lacked - close relationships, perhaps less cultural difference among participants - it is worth noting that the task will not be easy, as this episcopal area spans from Western to Eastern Europe, and thus contains both sides of that cultural divide on homosexuality. It will be interesting to see whether the assets that the Nordic and Baltic Area bring to this difficult project are able to produce a better result than the UMC as a whole experienced at General Conference 2019.

For more details, see the following:
A statement from the Area Group on their meeting in English
A paraphrase of that statement in Norwegian
A short description of the roundtables in English
A news article on the group's meeting and decision in German

The UMC in Denmark considers "a better way forward"

Ole Birch, a pastor in the Denmark Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church has suggested that body appoint a commission to recommend "a better way forward" for the UMC in Denmark. While Birch's suggestion is just that - a suggestion - it reveals the range of options that may be under consideration in Denmark following the adoption of the Traditional Plan by the special General Conference 2019. A translation by David Scott of an interview with Birch by the official website of the UMC in Denmark is below.

Proposal for a Better Way Forward (Forslag om en bedre vej fremad)
After the conclusion of the extraordinary General Conference last week, Ole Birch, pastor of the Jerusalem Church, posted a proposal to Facebook that he will present to the Methodist Church's National Meeting [Annual Conference]. Ole Birch calls the proposal "A better way forward," and it is about establishing a commission that will have the task to prepare a report for the 2021 annual conference on a future for the United Methodist Church in Denmark where gays and lesbians enjoy the same opportunities to have their relationships blessed and to serve in the church as all others.

You can read the proposal here. [Link in Danish.]

Proposals are made to the National Meeting and are handled by the delegates that the local congregations elect to represent them.

Metodistkirken.de has asked Ole Birch to explain the background for his proposal:

Ole Birch writes:

I have sent a proposal to the [United] Methodist Church in Denmark's annual conference about a commission for a better way forward. Moderator Anne Thompson has asked if I would shortly explain my thoughts in this regard, and I will do that gladly.

Like many others, I have experienced repeated disappointments that our more conservative brothers and sisters are not willing to allow room for different theologies on the question of human sexuality. I had dared to hope a little bit that our bishops initiative and support for the One Church Plan at the now concluded General Conference could have helped us into a new situation. As all who followed along saw, it went very differently. It is difficult to see how it would possibly go differently in the foreseeable future. It is my experience that many Danish Methodists experience discouragement and a feeling of powerlessness over this.

I make my proposal on two grounds. First, to point out that we are not powerless. We can, with God's help, take the situation into our own hands and form our future as we think it should be shaped. We must not give in to discouragement, which is a great temptation in this situation. Discouragement will lead us to give up and take us away from our fellowship in the church. I cannot think of any that feel discouraged, namely not the LGBTQ people that have held fast to their church, which has condemned and discriminated against them, but I will say that there is hope for a better way forward, if we stay together to form the way.

Second, I think we need to investigate what possibilities we have to come to a situation where we do not condemn and do not discriminate. Many have asked if one or another solution could not work? The commission I suggest should investigate to answer this question. Can we work together with European Methodists on a new church? Can we find ecumenical partners in Denmark to be church together with? Can we be autonomous? Can we ever leave the United Methodist Church? Can we become an affiliate church to the United Methodist Church, and thereby open more freedom? There are many such questions, but we lack answers. It is my hope that the commission can help us to find a better way forward.

Recommended Reading: German United Methodists Strive to Preserve Unity, Say No to Traditional Plan

The United Methodist Church in Germany has released a "Message from the Executive Committee to the congregations of the United Methodist Church in Germany." (Linked text is in English.) In the message, the Executive Committee states that while they are not of one mind about homosexuality, they will not abide by the provisions of the Traditional Plan. They indicate that they do not anticipate their differences of opinion to disappear anytime soon, but nonetheless they want to remain in unity, and they see the Traditional Plan as threatening that unity. The message also announces a series of roundtable discussions and promised that the 2020 Germany Central Conference will adopt "trendsetting resolutions."

A translation of the accompanying article by UM & Global's David W. Scott is below.

The Struggle for a Way to Preserve Unity (Das Ringen um einen Weg zur Bewahrung der Einheit)
By Klaus Ulrich Ruof

As a reaction to the passage of the "Traditional Plan," the Executive Committee ("Kirchenvorstand") of the United Methodist Church in Germany (EmK - Evangelisch-methodistische Kirche) responded with a message on the unity of the EmK/UMC in Germany.

The Executive Committee ("Kirchenvorstand") of the United Methodist Church (UMC / "EmK- Evangelisch-methodistische Kirche") in Germany had its regular spring session on Friday and Saturday (8 and 9 March) of last week. Almost the whole meeting, which met in the Hessian city of Fulda, was occupied with the decision of the recently-concluded general conference in St. Louis. The Executive Committee addresses the EmK congregations in Germany with a message to preserve unity and at the same time lay out the way to do so.

Consternation and concern for the unity of the EmK
"There is hardly a region of the United Methodist world where fragmentation, fractures, and deep chasms did not arise after the decision of the General Conference," Harald Rückert, the bishop responsible for Germany, opened the meeting of the Church Council by saying. These are the first impacts of the decision of the General Conference, which adopted the so-called "Traditional Plan," which reinforced the previous provisions of the church rules on homosexuality. In addition, the resolution calls for the consistent application of all relevant regulations and intensifies them through control and punishment. Deeply concerned, the members of the board of directors heard Rückert's information from numerous episcopal colleagues from northern, central and southern Europe, the USA, Africa and the Philippines. Deep consternation and great concern for the unity of the UMC is heard from all regions. With quotes from letters to the bishop, the members of the Executive Committee for the EmK in Germany also received insight into the turmoil and emotional dismay that the decision triggered in people with very different attitudes in congregations of the EmK in Germany.

"Not acceptable"
The Executive Committee had to deal with the decision of General Conference, because the framework of the decision expressly required a statement from all Annual Conferences of the UMC worldwide. With two essential statements, the Executive Committee addressed its advice to the people in the German EmK congregations. On the one hand, the message of the Executive Committee states: "Independent of the contents of our commitments, we are unanimously of the opinion, that these provisions of the Traditional Plan are not acceptable." That is why the United Methodist Church in Germany is not going down "the adopted way of thought control and intensified punishments." The members of the Executive Committee emphasized that "democratically-made decisions" must be respected. However, the wide-reaching consequences of the decision in this case make the adoption and implementation of the decision in United Methodist bodies in Germany impossible.

A united way "that demands much from all of us"
The second main statement of the message of the Executive Committee is an invitation to all groups of the EmK in Germany, to take part in a way to preserve unity. On this way, the church can only remain together if it succeeds in "liv[ing] in proximity and acknowledgement even without agreeing on important questions. We therefore want to be a church where people with homosexual sensibilities can be ordained and blessed in a marriage ceremony, and also where traditionally minded people can uphold their ideas and lifestyles. The “Kirchenvorstand” has reached agreement on this objective." This path will be pursued in the awareness "that the endeavour to uphold community will make great demands of us all in future too," if people of different convictions are to find security and a home in the church. The plea was made "to stay in our church and join us in our search for this way."

Roundtables
The Executive Council decided, for the search for a way to preserve unity, to form "roundtables," to which "people  from  different  groups  and  directions  in  our  church  will  be  invited." These will begin their work before the middle of May. Bishop Rückert will call and spiritually lead a group that will initiate the process for roundtables. In November 2020, the Central Conference will adopt "trendsetting resolutions," because only there can decisions affecting church rules for all three German Annual Conference be adopted.

Sign in an increasingly torn and divided society
The members of the Executive Committee expressly point out that the decision came about after intensive deliberations. The superintendents of the nine districts of the EmK in Germany (one woman and eight men) as well as the further 21 voting and advisory members of the Executive Committee "have  spent  several  days  struggling  intensively,  emotionally and honestly with this resolution and all its consequences." Despite widely diverging opinions, they came to this unanimous decision. If this way succeeds, as it says at the conclusion of the letter, it could be "an  important  sign  in  an  increasingly  torn  and  divided  society."

Nancy Ammerman: How denominations split: Lessons for Methodists from Baptist battles of the ’80s

Today's post is by Dr. Nancy Ammerman. Dr. Ammerman is Professor of Sociology of Religion at Boston University School of Theology. This piece originally appeared on Religion News Service and is republished here with the permission of the author.

Talk of schism in the United Methodist Church has prompted me to revisit the research I did in the 1980s as the Southern Baptist Convention was being transformed into the monolithically conservative body it is today. I wanted to know: How does a denomination arrive at and move through a split?

What I wrote about in my 1990 book, Baptist Battles, may just have some enduring lessons for what we are seeing now.

Nearly a century ago, H. Richard Niebuhr wrote “The Social Sources of Denominationalism,” and my research confirmed his contention that differences over theology or practice are rarely enough to split a denomination. The argument has to tap deeper social divisions.

It’s not that theology doesn’t matter. The Southern Baptist argument was begun by conservatives who claimed an inerrantist view of the Bible. They also definitely disapproved of the growing number of ordained women in progressive SBC churches. These were real theological differences between the parties, just as there are today between the traditional and progressive Methodists.

Those groups’ differences were also social and political, however. Southern Baptist progressives — they called themselves moderates — were more likely to come from cities, to value seminary-educated clergy and to favor women’s and minority rights. Conservatives opposed abortion and welfare and were strongly anti-communist (remember, this was the ’80s). They were more likely to have moved from rural to urban areas and to be somewhat less well-off.

In a very large denomination, spread out across the country, even such socially different groups can coexist for a long time without a split. A split also requires an organized movement to “call the question.” That’s what happened to Baptists in the 1980s, and that is what has happened to Methodists over the last decade.

Now that the Methodists have reached the precipice, the very complicated organizational work of division has to get underway, and one thing is sure: Nothing will happen quickly. Whatever division happens will unfold at multiple levels over at least a decade. Denominations aren’t just individuals who share (or formerly share) a theology. They are complex organizations with national bureaucracies, regional branch offices, local congregations and individual members. Each of those parts of the whole will come apart in different ways.

How that happens is determined by the denomination’s “polity,” that is, the way it governs itself. Baptists don’t have bishops, but Methodists do. That means that it is harder for Methodist congregations or clergy members simply to do what they individually think is right. Most critically, Methodist connectional polity means that the congregation doesn’t own its property — although this recent conference seems to have opened the way for churches to leave without giving up their buildings.

Even denominations without bishops, however, have extensive national organizations with lots of influence over what happens in local churches. They develop programs, publish literature, organize mission efforts and educate clergy.

The conservatives who took over the SBC knew that this connective tissue was their real target. They replaced members of the governing boards, then replaced the staff and eventually transformed all the national institutions into supporters of conservative theological (and political) causes. If traditionalist Methodists prevail and progressive ones leave, we can expect to see just such a slow but inevitable transformation of their national bodies.

We may also expect to see a few Methodist organizations declare independence. Among Baptists, Baylor University’s cutting of its official Baptist ties was the most noted such move. For Methodists, some of the theological schools – especially those lodged in universities – may follow that path. It means developing new funding streams, of course, but it also means “rebranding” so as to keep a claim on one’s historic identity even as the organizational link is severed.

The most visible splitting among Methodists is likely to happen at the local church level. Individual congregations will have to decide whether to stay, and if not, where to go. In some cases, that decision may divide the congregation itself, with one faction leaving to start something new. Jimmy Carter’s Maranatha Baptist is one of the more visible Baptist examples.

Some progressive congregations will choose to stay and force the fight. My old church, Oakhurst Baptist, in Atlanta, stayed, forcing each of its Baptist associations to officially vote it out (which they eventually did). Other congregations may simply exit quietly. There are about 800 United Methodist churches that have identified with the movement to accept LGBTQ members and clergy. They are the ones to watch, but others may join them.

When a church leaves, it can either join with others to form something new or join up with an existing denomination. Departing Southern Baptists formed the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Alliance of Baptists, which are still going strong, but a few churches also aligned themselves with the American Baptist Churches, effectively mending the North-South rift that was created in the 1840s by slavery. The Reconciling Ministries Network may be the nucleus of a progressive Methodist alternative, but there are also overtures emerging from Episcopal and other denominations.

But what about individual Methodists? If they are like the Baptists in the 1980s, most haven’t been paying much attention to all the sound and fury. It is likely that they already attend a church that mostly matches their theological and political views, so most won’t notice much change, at least initially.

But there are sometimes crises that change that. When the issue of accepting LGBTQ persons becomes personal — a son or daughter, perhaps — individual Methodists may seek a new place to worship, and it may or may not be Methodist.

Perhaps more critically, young adults brought up Methodist are overwhelmingly on the progressive side of this issue. Their failure to pursue a clergy career — or even to stay in the church — is likely to further solidify a traditionalist future for the UMC.

The answer to how you split a denomination, then, is slowly, in hundreds of painful decisions. These will almost certainly result in multiple new, more polarized religious bodies with less diverse middle ground.

Recommended Reading: Inter-Ethnic Strategy & Development Group Statement at Special Called General Conference 2019

Last week, Dana Robert raised the issue of women leaders as "collateral damage" in the current fights over LGBTQ ministry and marriage in The United Methodist Church. Yet women leaders are not the only potential collateral damage in this fight.

The Inter-Ethnic Strategy & Development Group, which represents the five racial ethnic caucuses in the United States, including over twenty distinct racial ethnic groups, issued a statement on the last day of General Conference. While the statement is worth reading in its entirety, one of the last points speaks directly to the issue of collateral damage in this fight:

"We celebrate a narrative of church growth within The UMC in the United States. As you deliberate, please remember that your decisions will have lasting fiscal ramifications for racial ethnic ministries, where membership is growing. Despite our struggle to overcome racism, nationalism, and effects of unjust systems such as immigration, poverty, and other social issue, racial ethnic membership has grown during the decades from 1996 to 2016." The statement then cites statistics first published on this blog.

The statement is clear: racial ethnic congregations in the US are growing, but church-dividing debates that drain necessary support money away from new ministries will hurt that growth. Many of the racial ethnic groups did not take positions on the plans before General Conference because of the diversity of opinion among their membership and because they recognized that unity was important for fashioning their shared future. While it should not detract from the primary damage done to LGBTQ+ people, people of color also stand to lose in this coming Methodist civil war.

Dana L. Robert: The “Other” Issue of Gender: What Happens to United Methodist Women Leaders?

Today's blog post is written by Dr. Dana L. Robert. Dr. Robert is the Truman Collins Professor of World Christianity and History of Missions and Director of the Center for Global Christianity and Mission at the Boston University School of Theology.

The recent General Conference was a very public fight over the identity and direction of the United Methodist Church, with regard to LGBTQ issues of ordination and marriage.  Without minimizing the pain of LGBTQ sisters and brothers, as a women’s historian, I need to raise the issue of collateral damage—that of the ministry and leadership of women. As a spirit-filled Wesleyan “centrist” who is more interested in mission than dogma, I offer these observations in dismay and sorrow.

Anyone who watched the live streaming of the conference saw women bishops in the chair, and a disproportionately large number of women supporting flexibility and inclusion. This combination was no coincidence. The United Methodist Church has more women bishops, more ordained women, more women seminary professors, more deaconesses, and more women in charge of church agencies than any other church in the world. When I travel in southern Africa, I often meet women who tell me that their education and empowerment have come directly through the mission of the United Methodist Church. To dismantle it--as was so casually discussed--is a body blow against women’s leadership in the church.

Every women’s historian knows that fights over restructuring undercut the ministry of women. Progress in gender relations is never certain. Women keep fighting to minister, to teach theology, and to serve a God who has called diverse people into ministry. In 1880, northern Methodist women lost their licenses to preach. In 1884, Methodist and Presbyterian officials attacked their women’s missionary societies, and four years later women delegates were denied seats at the Methodist General Conference. In 1910, men in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, forcibly merged women’s organizations. Lacking voice and vote, southern Methodist women began fighting for laity rights. In 1923, during the fundamentalist-modernist controversies, the Presbyterian women lost their national agency overnight. It was not until 1956 that Presbyterian and Methodist women got full ordination rights.

Back in the late 1970s, when I was in graduate school, I knew women whose male classmates walked out of the classroom when they gave presentations because they did not think women should teach theology. Women in the graduate religion program just a few years ahead of me talked about how they had to serve refreshments to their fellow male students at departmental get-togethers. As a young southern woman on her first day of graduate school, an older male student—upon learning I had attended Louisiana State University rather than an elite private school—asked me, “How did you get in here? Did you know somebody?” As the first tenured woman in the venerable Boston University School of Theology, I carry memories of struggles that today’s seminarians think happened only in the 19th century. Only one generation ago, Southern Baptist women were ejected from seminaries and lost their right to preach. Even the memory of Lottie Moon was hijacked by fundamentalists, who crushed women’s ministries while they told women to “graciously submit” to their husbands.

In the past few years, freestanding mainline seminaries like Bangor, Episcopal Divinity School, Andover-Newton, San Francisco, Pacific School of Religion, St. Paul’s, and Claremont have collapsed or been forced to merge with other institutions. Today there are fewer seminaries in which women can teach theological disciplines than forty years ago. Emory, Duke, Boston University. . . what happens when these United Methodist university-based seminaries lose the support of a fractured church? The universities that host them will not look kindly on being yoked to fundamentalist-type readings of scripture that prop up exclusion. The fight to the death over LGBTQ rights will continue to shrink spaces in which women can teach theology. And where women cannot teach, LGBTQ students will not be welcome either.

Women’s high visibility at the recent General Conference demonstrated that the tradition of John Wesley has been the most welcoming to women’s leadership in the history of Protestantism.  In global perspective, fundamentalist biblical interpretation yoked with punitive sanctions against LGBTQ persons undercuts that tradition. In effect, the recent General Conference was a stealth attack against women in ministry. The agony of the excluded LGBTQ youth was the agony of the women who have mentored them, and who experience the pain of their own struggles all over again.

Recommended reading: German, Danish, Norwegian coverage of General Conference 2019

United Methodist News Service (UMNS) did an excellent job of covering the events of General Conference over the past four days, and they also did an excellent job of ensuring that coverage was translated into French, Portuguese, Spanish, and Korean.

Yet they were not the only United Methodist news source covering the conference. Among others, Klaus Ulrich Ruof of the Germany Episcopal Area wrote a series of articles about the conference from the perspective of German delegates. For those interested in another perspective on the proceedings, you can read his articles below:
Auf der Suche nach der Lösung ("On the Search for a Solution," Feb. 22)
Achtungsvolle Weite als Auftrag ("Respectful Wideness as Mission," Feb. 23)
Bedeutung und Wirkung einer einfachen Form ("The Meaning and Effect of a Simple Form," [on the Gateway Arch,] Feb. 23)
Die, um die es geht, waren vergessen worden ("Those about Whom It Is Were Forgotten," Feb. 24)
Die Einheit zur Leidenschaft machen ("Make Unity a Passion," Feb. 25)
Traum oder Albtraum? ("Dream or Nightmare?" Feb. 26)
Der Weg zum Miteinander bleibt auf der Strecke ("The Way to Togetherness Remains in the Distance," Feb. 27)

The United Methodist Churches in Denmark and Norway also had coverage of the event, though less extensive than the German coverage. From Denmark:
De danske delegater er på vej ("The Danish Delegates Are on the Way," Feb. 21)
De danske delegater hilser ("Greetings from the Danish delegates," Feb. 25)
Biskop Christian Alsteds åbningstale ("Bishop Christian Alsted's Opening Speech," Feb. 25)
Opdatering fra biskoppen ("Update from the Bishop," Feb. 26)
Opfordring fra Metodistkirkens unge ("Request from the Methodist Church's Youth," Feb. 26)
Generalkonferencen 2019 er ovre – hvad nu? ("General Conference 2019 is Over - What Now?" Feb. 27)

The Norwegian church translated many of the UMNS articles into Norwegian, as can be found in their news archive. They also wrote additional Norwegian-specific content, including the following:
På vei til historisk generalkonferanse ("On the Way to the Historic General Conference," Feb. 19)
Biskop Christian Alsteds åpningstale ("Bishop Christian Alsted's Opening Speech," Feb. 25)
Be for at Den Hellige Ånd skal veilede oss ("Pray that the Holy Spirit Will Lead Us," Feb. 26)
One Church Plan strandet, Traditional Plan går videre ("One Church Plan Is Stranded, Traditional Plan Continues On," Feb. 26)
Etter generalkonferansen ("After General Conference," Feb. 27)

A Prayer of Confession for GC2019

After nearly three years of anticipation and an increasing crescendo of opinions, debates, discussions, and strategizing, General Conference 2019 begins tomorrow. Knowing that the eyes of the United Methodist world will be focused elsewhere, UM & Global will take a brief hiatus until after the conclusion of the General Conference.

Since the General Conference will begin with a day of prayer, I leave you with this prayer of confession from the United Methodist Hymnal, A Service of Word and Table 1, p. 8. It is likely that none of us has nor will fully love God with all our hearts, souls, strength, and minds, nor our neighbor as ourselves through this process. For that, Lord have mercy.

Merciful God,
we confess that we have not loved you with our whole heart.
We have failed to be an obedient church.
We have not done your will,
we have broken your law,
we have rebelled against your love,
we have not loved our neighbors,
and we have not heard the cry of the needy.
Forgive us, we pray.
Free us for joyful obedience,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen

Recommended Readings: More African views on General Conference 2019

As commentaries continue to pour forth in the closing days before General Conference 2019 convenes on February 23rd, several pieces by African United Methodists give a sense of the variety of African viewpoints heading into GC2019.

The Africa Initiative issued a call to prayer for the week of Jan. 28 in preparation for the special called General Conference.

UMNS published a series of video interviews with Rev. Forbes Matonga of Zimbabwe on his views of the way forward

UMNS published a commentary on GC2019 by retired Congolese bishop and Way Forward moderator David Yemba

UMNS published a commentary on GC2019 by Congolese native Albert Otshudi Longe, who currently resides in the United States

One could compare these four pieces in terms of their views on homosexuality. The Africa Initiative and Rev. Matonga (who is a leader in the Africa Initiative) are clearly opposed. Bishop Yemba does not take a direct position. Mr. Longe speaks against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Yet another interesting comparison is to examine the range of terms the four pieces use to describe the upcoming General Conference and The United Methodist Church as a whole. The Africa Initiative speaks of GC2019 as "spiritual warfare." Rev. Matonga instead states, "This is not a war," and calls for gracious and civil behavior. Bishop Yemba speaks of the church as a worshipping community and theological entity. Mr. Longe describes the church using the African concept of "ubuntu."

While Americans often paint Africans with a broad brush, this collection of commentaries should serve as a good reminder that not only are there a variety of views among Africans about the issues at hand before GC2019, there are also differing African ways of understanding General Conference and the church itself.