Robert J. Harman: Evangelical Church Disciplines

Today's post is by Rev. Robert J. Harman. Rev. Harman is a mission executive retired from the General Board of Global Ministries and was ordained in the Evangelical United Brethren Church.

David Scott’s postings on the subject of the UMC Book of Disciple stirred me to do a little historical research into the origins of the book in the history of the Evangelical Association, a forerunner of the Evangelical Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church, which is my denominational heritage. My source is Raymond Albright’s A History of the Evangelical Church (1942).

The concept of a published Discipline occurred to founder Jacob Albright thanks to his personal association with the Methodist beginnings in his eastern Pennsylvania home. Unsatisfied with the outreach among his German heritage population by the English-bred circuit riders of Methodism, he began recruiting his own German speaking preachers into his Evangelical Association, which was dedicated to mission on that cultural frontier.

The first Discipline of the Evangelical Association had a single purpose. Albright knew that the success of the church’s mission would depend solely upon the quality of its circuit riding preachers. They were recruited from among the house churches and camp meeting revivals he was conducting. They included those who responded to the spirit filled messages they heard in their native tongue but had no formal training in biblical studies or church history.

So, included in the first published Discipline in 1809, along with a general introduction to the Christian church and organizational rules for conducting General Conferences, was a key ingredient. The first order of business of each General Conference would be a required examination of the moral standard of every preacher newly recruited and already active in the connection. 

When English speaking evangelists began appearing in the ranks of preachers, the examination process was heightened. Soon sessions of the General Conference had to decide when and how much of the German speaking texts needed translation. The audience for such was the growing segment of second-generation families among German settlers as well as confronting the more rapidly growing English-speaking populations addressed by the evangelistic outreach of the circuit riders’ movement westward and into urban centers.

The bilingual project was slowed down by controversy in those General Conference sessions over who among the leaders of the Evangelical Association was qualified to make accurate translations. By 1830, the text of the Discipline appeared in both German and English.

Over time, the contents of the Disciplines expanded to include revised articles of faith and the naming of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper. The doctrinal standards emerged largely by borrowing from the Methodist Discipline, often adopting language on controversial themes such as Christian perfection. That was followed by new commentary on matters of Christian behavior. Details for electing bishops and appointing pastors (by presiding elders, no longer by Albright or successor bishops) were spelled out. Paragraphs on local church matters included election of class leaders, organization of Sunday Schools, and support for disabled pastors.

Statements on public issues were preceded by an overview of Christian social responsibility in the 1825 edition: To be “One in accord with Christian regulations to labor together with upright Christians for the building of His glorious kingdom on earth.” That was followed by personal guidance on temperance, tobacco, Sabbath, and dress in the text of the 1830 publication. And a profoundly prophetic statement addressed the impending leanings toward a civil war, stating: “We believe that war and the shedding of blood are incompatible with the Gospel and Spirit of Christ.” The Evangelical Church never sanctioned slavery.

In the growing reality of a developing bilingual or cross-cultural ministry, the priority of a publishing house emerged to corner official treatment of controversial subjects and offer uniform lessons for catechism and adult education. For the circuit riders on the frontiers, there was only room in their saddle bags for a Bible, a hymnal and a Discipline. Thus, those texts were their sole library, forging the foundation of faith presented to the adherents of a growing denomination.

The quest for finding the “relationship between discipline and discipleship,” as David Scott wrote in his essay, had early beginnings in this Evangelical tradition of our denominational heritage. As for success in applying “rules vs. norms and boundaries vs. ideals as ways of influencing behavior,” that effort awaits further inquiry.

David W. Scott - United Methodist Disciplines: Rules and Norms

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.

Last week, I argued that the purpose of having a denominational Book of Discipline is to help United Methodists live productive lives of Christian discipleship, where, together with others in Christian community, they grow in holiness, i.e., the love of God and neighbor. The process of developing a General Book of Discipline that determines adaptable and non-adaptable portions of the present Book of Discipline is thus an opportunity to think theologically about the role of discipline in the life of discipleship.

One of Methodism’s theological insights is that actions matter in the Christian life. Christianity is not just about believing the right things; it is about putting one’s faith into action and thereby living out holy love. Discipline builds on this insight by trying to regulate Methodists’ actions, to encourage those actions which best express holiness and discourage actions which are at odds with holy living.

Yet there are two different ways to influence people’s actions: rules and norms.

Rules are formal statements of required or prohibited actions. They usually are tied to a set of stated consequences that apply if the rules are broken or at least an authority that has the power to enforce the rules and apply penalties if they are not followed. The primary feature of rules is that they are explicit. They state clearly, in ways that are accessible to all members of a community, how those community members are to behave.

Norms, on the other hand, are implicit. They are internalized and usually unspoken guidelines about how community members are to behave. There may be consequences to breaking norms, but these are social consequences, and those consequences are not necessarily predetermined nor does their application depend upon a particular authority. Norms operate through a process of socialization into the group that produces a common understanding of how to act.

Both formal rules and internalized norms can significantly shape people’s actions, but they do so in different ways, with each working best in specific settings.

Rules are especially useful in situations where there might be uncertainty or disagreement about how to behave. When there is uncertainty or disagreement about behavior, rules define expected behavior clearly in a way that everyone can access.

There are probably rules posted in your church kitchen. Not everyone who enters a church kitchen does so with the same idea about what to do with a dirty coffee cup or where to store leftover food, so posted rules encourage people to behave in the same way in that kitchen, regardless of what their initial inclinations would be.

Rules are also especially useful in situations where the consequences of behavior are significant. There’s no rule about not making change from the offering plate because, while that might be seen as a social faux pas, there’s little impact on others of that behavior. However, there are probably rules posted around your church about the heating or air conditioning systems because if one person acted inappropriately, that has the potential to discomfort everyone else in the church.

Norms have the advantage of being more comprehensive and more efficient than rules. Because they are based on observations of the behaviors of others, a lot more can be communicated in this way, and it can be done much more quickly than if everything were written down.

Imagine all of the behavioral choices that go into the average church potluck – what type of food to bring, how much to bring, what form to bring it in, how much food to take, etc. Some of these choices might be decided through formal rules (e.g., “Last names A-G bring a salad.”), but most of these choices are made based on observations of previous potlucks. You get a sense of how people act at a potluck, then you behave similarly. There might be some confusion for first-time participants, but by your second or third potluck, you get the hang of it, all without having to read a 32-page manual of rules on how to behave at potlucks. This is the power of norms. Even if there were a 32-page manual of potluck rules, it still probably won’t be as effective at getting people to behave the same way as social imitation is.

The disadvantage of norms is that they require a community of practice to operate. Potluck norms work when there’s a church community that regularly has potlucks. That setting of the same group of people engaging in the same set of actions is what allows people to socially learn from one another. If a church were to have a potluck for the first time ever, there would likely be a lot more variation in people’s behavior at the potluck. Or, if you had been to many potlucks before but then went to one in a new setting, it might be more difficult to anticipate in advance how people would behave because you would be outside the community where you learned potluck norms.

One of Wesley’s key insights, though, was that the practice of Christianity best happened in community. Classes, bands, and select societies were predicated on Christian community. These groups formed settings in which collective Christian norms could encourage all members of the community to behave in a more holy way. The Bible may function as a shared text, but most Christian small groups don’t have an extensive list of rules to govern their behavior or that of their members. Instead, they depend upon frequent interactions among members around shared areas of concern that build up commonly held norms in those areas. This has historically been an incredibly effective way to discipline Christians in their practice of discipleship.

Yet, the entire membership of The United Methodist Church functions much different than a small group. Most members of the church do not know each other, indeed have never met each other. So, there is no opportunity for people to directly learn social norms from one another. To the extent that individuals are part of multiple smaller groups within the denomination, they may help transfer norms from one area to another.

Nevertheless, for there to be shared understandings of expected behavior across the whole denomination, there need to be explicit rules, since the scope of the denomination is too large for implicit norms to function well. That is why we have a Book of Discipline.

Yet, even though rules are necessary in a large, multi-national, multicultural, multilinguistic denomination, it is important to remember that discipleship best happens in community and discipline exists to support discipleship. Thus, making formal rules is not an end in itself. The best and most effective way to discipline members into living lives of Christian discipleship is for them to be part of communities that can create shared norms of discipleship.

Rules support this process of community norming by ensuring that these communities incorporate key behaviors when the potential risk of not doing so would be disastrous to communities and by clarifying expectations of how the communities will relate to one another in mutual support of their process of forming Christian disciples.

Rules are not the only thing that can be included in a written Book of Discipline. In my next post, I’ll look at the distinction between boundaries and ideals.

David W. Scott - United Methodist Disciplines: Discipline and Discipleship

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.

Among the many actions of the recently concluded General Conference was to approve continued work on the General Book of Discipline. The creation of a General Book of Discipline is an idea that’s been around The United Methodist Church for some time and is laid out in ¶101 of the Book of Discipline.

In short, work on the General Book of Discipline involves designating certain portions of the Book of Discipline as adaptable and certain portions of it as non-adaptable. Adaptable portions of the Book of Discipline could be changed by central conferences (and regional conferences, should Worldwide Regionalization be ratified). Non-adaptable portions of the Book of Discipline are binding on all branches of the church.

Clearly in the non-adaptable portion of the Book of Discipline is the Constitution, the Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task, the Ministry of All Christians, and the Social Principles. Work on the General Book of Discipline is thus focused on the largest portion of the Discipline, Part VI: Organization and Administration. The instructions in ¶101 call for Part VI to be split into adaptable and non-adaptable parts.

This work is primarily assigned to the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters (SCCCM) and the Committee on Faith and Order (CFO), with some additional groups consulted on portions of the work. A movement at General Conference to give the SCCCM and CFO the power to reword portions of the Discipline rather than merely categorize them as adaptable or non-adaptable ran out of time to revise the authorizing legislation.

Worldwide Regionalization was one of the major foci for General Conference, and the work on the General Book of Discipline intersects in important ways with the push for regionalization. The regionalization legislation (which still requires ratification by annual conferences to go into effect) would clarify and strengthen the power of what would become regional conferences to adapt portions of the Book of Discipline. A General Book of Discipline would clarify where that power to adapt should be focused.

For some portions of the Book of Discipline, the decision about whether to categorize them as adaptable or non-adaptable is fairly straightforward. Portions of the Discipline dealing with US clergy pension programs, for instance, are clearly relevant only to one part of the church, and other parts of the church should be able to remove them or replace them with their own clergy retirement provisions.

Other portions of the Book of Discipline are less clear. Should the order of deacons be an adaptable part of the Discipline, since some places in Africa still practice the transitional diaconate, or should that become a standard practice everywhere? Should the agencies be seen as part of the global infrastructure of the church, or are they primarily vehicles for the US church to do its work? Should the process of organizing a new congregation be the same in all places?

Such questions push the church to think carefully about theological issues around contextualization, subsidiarity, unity, and mission. They impinge upon relational issues such as trust, differentiation, control, and reciprocity. These are all good and important issues to think through.

Yet if we go one level further up, work on the General Book of Discipline raises a further question: Why do we have a Book of Discipline? What is its role in the United Methodist understanding of the Christian life? How does the concept of discipline and the existence of a Book of Discipline shape The United Methodist Church as a Christian community?

Discipline is a central concept in Methodism, dating back to the days of John Wesley. In secular meanings, discipline has connotations of instruction, knowledge, training, and adherence to rules. All of these fit with Methodism’s understanding of discipline.

But the best linguistic connection through which to understand Methodist discipline is the connection between discipline and discipleship. Discipline is, in essence, a reflection of the Methodist understanding of how discipleship should work. For Methodists, a life of discipleship is a disciplined life.

John Wesley believed, and subsequent generations of Methodists have maintained, that a life of Christian discipleship should be focused on growing in holiness through sanctifying grace. That process of growth involves spiritual and moral training, which is best carried out in Christian community through a set of regularized practices that structure the Christian life.

In Wesley’s revival, such lives of Christian discipline were initially structured through small groups – the classes and bands. Eventually, as Wesley and the preachers associated with him began to meet in yearly conferences, the minutes of those conferences wrote down “what to teach, how to teach, and how to regulate our doctrine, discipline, and practice.” These written minutes were the beginning of the evolution of the present UMC Book of Discipline.

Yet it should not be lost that the point of these formalized minutes was to assist the individual Christians who were part of Wesley’s revival in living out disciplined lives of Christian holiness. The point of disciplines (and a written Discipline) was ultimately spiritual, not administrative, legislative, or legal. Disciplines existed to standardize best practices from the revival so that people could incorporate these practices into their Christian discipleship and thereby grow in holiness.

Thus, as United Methodists think about work on the General Book of Discipline, it is critical to keep in mind the spiritual intent of having a Book of Discipline. The question is not merely, “What rules can we afford to allow variation in around the world?” Ultimately, the question must be, “How do we craft a General Book of Discipline that helps United Methodists around the world be successful disciples of Jesus Christ?”

With this lens of discipleship in mind, I will suggest a few additional concepts over the next several posts to help United Methodists think through how disciplines and a Discipline can contribute to living out lives of holiness in Christian community.

David W. Scott: Why the Book of Discipline Matters More in the US

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.

When General Conference convenes in just over a month, it will spend most of its time examining legislative petitions to alter the Book of Discipline (BOD), the denomination’s rule book. And the overwhelming majority of those petitions dealing with the BOD come from the United States.

There are many reasons why so much of the BOD legislation at General Conference comes from the US – the relative size of the church there, the historical US-centrism of the denomination, the lack of any other venue for the church in the US to make policy.

But along with these well-documented reasons, there are also cultural and institutional factors for why US United Methodists want and need a Book of Discipline for church governance more than United Methodists elsewhere. That’s not to say that other parts of the UMC don’t use or care about the BOD. It’s just to say that the BOD has a special significance in the US that it doesn’t hold elsewhere.

I’ll briefly survey four explanations:

• An emphasis on the rule of law

• Light government regulation of religion

• A large, distributed, and diverse church

• Significant assets

Each of these factors contributes to the greater emphasis on the Book of Discipline in the United States relative to elsewhere in the UMC.

An Emphasis on the Rule of Law

US Americans tend to place a high cultural value on rules, laws, and formal, impersonal systems. When something goes wrong, the US American attitude is often, “There should be a rule about that!” and US Americans often assume that things will go smoothly if everyone follows the rules.

While this attitude is bred in US Americans primarily by our secular legal system, this preference for formal rules carries over into many other arenas, including the church. Having a book of church laws as the central text for a denomination reflects a particularly American veneration for law.

In this veneration of the rule of law, US Americans reflect a general trend withing Western modernity. Yet the large and active lawsuit culture in the United States that is not present elsewhere in the Western world also turbocharges a reliance on formal rules as a way of avoiding bad scenarios.

Not all countries in the world share the same high cultural value on the rule of law as Americans do. Other countries may emphasize personal preferences of a leader, interpersonal or collective systems of arbitration, or implicit cultural standards to tell people how to act and what to do when something goes wrong. These are all alternatives to formal laws and thus alternatives to relying on the BOD for questions of church governance.

Light Government Regulation of Religion

This may seem paradoxical in connection with the above point about the emphasis on the rule of law, but it’s not. One of the foundational concepts in the system of American laws is the separation of church and state. That is not true everywhere, even in other Western countries with a similarly strong sense of the rule of law. The standard in much of the world is for the government to regulate people’s religious practices and organizations.

If the government is not going to regulate religious groups in the US and there’s a desire for those religious groups to be governed by a system of laws, that means the religious groups have to come up with their own laws, since the state isn’t going to do it for them. The BOD is an expression of the US American church’s desire to self-regulate in the absence of much government regulation.

In other countries with a UMC presence, it may not be necessary to put so many rules into the Book of Discipline because the matters addressed, including employment and pensions, may already be covered by government regulation. Thus, having separate church regulation is unnecessary.

A Large, Distributed, and Diverse church

Even after disaffiliation, but especially historically over the past half century, the US American portion of The United Methodist Church is large – millions of members within scores of annual conferences led by dozens of bishops spread across five jurisdictions and every US state and territory. Within this group are very large churches and very small churches; urban, suburban, and rural churches; black, white, Asian, Native American, and Hispanic churches; rich churches and poor churches; and many other forms of variety.

This size, distribution, and diversity mean two things.

First, the church is much too large to operate effectively through informal, personal governance. While there are certainly United Methodist insiders, most United Methodists do not have direct personal ties with one another. Most are not even at one degree of removal, where two parties both know someone in common who could serve as a go-between. In the absence of such personal connections between United Methodists, it is more important to have impersonal rules since behavior and conflict management cannot always be addressed through personal means.

Moreover, there is no central head figure of the church in the United States who could serve as an ultimate personal arbiter within the church. Each bishop is co-equal, and there are dozens of bishops. Short of a miraculous revelation, there is no way to adjudicate a dispute among bishops by appealing to their common superior. Without personal regulation, impersonal regulation becomes more important.

Second, the church is too distributed and diverse for there to be central cultural norms that shape everyone’s understanding of how to act as the church and what to do when things go wrong. Different regions of the country, different racial and ethnic groups, even churches at different stages of the organizational lifecycle will have different notions of what the expectations for church are. Without shared cultural understandings, it is impossible to adjudicate between competing understandings of how to behave in certain situations without some sort of external systems of written procedures.

While this lack of personal or cultural regulation in the United States makes the BOD that much more important there, other countries have stronger systems of personal and cultural regulation that make the BOD less necessary there. The small size of the church in Europe and the Philippines means that many systems for running the church can be established through personal connections and a shared culture without the need for formal regulations. In Africa, the strong power of bishops, who often govern all the United Methodist churches in a country, provides a personal focus for church governance. In many places in Africa, this personal approach to church governance is reinforced by shared cultural, ethnic, and kinship ties.

Significant Assets

Finally, the US UMC has large holdings in property and finances. Pre-disaffiliation, those total assets throughout the US connection were somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 billion. All these assets mean that the financial stakes for church governance in the United States are high. If someone embezzles money, tries to leave the denomination with their church’s property, does something to get the church sued, or makes a bad financial transaction, the ramifications for those actions could be large, at least monetarily.

Thus, there is in an incentive for more extensive formal rules to try to handle and protect this large amount of assets. Regulations on church property, pensions, apportionments, church employment, and other finance and finance-adjacent areas of the BOD are there so that US Americans can manage their church’s assets, especially in the context of a well-developed secular US legal system with significant opportunities for lawsuits. Putting rules in the BOD allows US United Methodists to avoid secular courts more often and set the terms for when cases do end up in secular courts.

The church in all places has some assets. But in no other place is there the same combination of wealth and size that the church has in the US. Thus, no other place has the same financial incentives to put in place a system of formal financial rules through the BOD that the US has.

Conclusion

Ultimately, it is neither inherently good nor bad for the US to rely heavily on the BOD or for other branches of the church to rely less heavily on it. What creates a possibility for misunderstanding is when US United Methodists rely heavily on the BOD, other United Methodists rely less heavily on it, but General Conference proceeds as if the BOD has the same significance for everyone. Delegates should be aware when they discuss the BOD at General Conference that delegates from different places will have different understandings about the role of the BOD in the life of the church and may have different things at stake in the discussion.

If General Conference creates some option for the formation of a US region, it will have the benefit that US United Methodists will have a venue in which they can fulfill their cultural and contextual need for an extensive set of church laws and regulations without needing to negotiate all those laws and regulations across international cultures, where the various parties have different understandings of law and different senses of what’s at stake. Such an outlet for US energy around lawmaking would then free up General Conference to focus more on spiritual, relational, and other aspects of what it means to be the church together.

A Primer on UMC Assets: Local Church Assets

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. Dr. Scott is neither a lawyer nor an accountant, and thus the following should not be interpreted as legal advice.

As previously discussed, 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 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 BOD 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 UMC, but also for the Episcopalian 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 UMC 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 BOD. While it would violate the BOD, 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 BOD. 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 UMC, 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.

Recommended Reading: Lumber River Conference of the Holiness Methodist Church Discipline

Plans are underway in The United Methodist Church to develop a "Global Book of Discipline," a subset of the material in the current Book of Discipline that would be binding on all United Methodists everywhere, with the rest up for adaptation by local units of the church.

This push reflects, in part, that the current UMC Book of Discipline is over 800 pages long. Those 800 pages contain a large quantity of material, not all of which is equally relevant in all cultural, political, or social settings.

While 800 pages, may seem particularly long, Books of Discipline in the UMC and its predecessors have never been short. The earliest Books of Discipline that I have been able to find online, the 1791 and 1798 Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, still run to nearly 200 pages.

That is why it is interesting to read the Doctrines and Discipline of the Lumber River Conference of the Holiness Methodist Church. It weighs in at a tight 53 pages, excluding an appendix of denominational paperwork forms.

The Lumber River Conference is a small group of mostly Native American churches in North Carolina that established itself as independent in 1900. Certainly part of the reason why its Doctrines and Discipline is so short is the size of the denomination - it has fewer than a dozen churches and no boards and agencies. Yet there were no boards and agencies in 1791, and the MEC still found material to fill over 190 pages. The LRCHMC's Discipline is shorter than its predecessors. Thus, the Lumber River Conference Doctrines and Discipline stands as a reminder that ever-lengthening Books of Discipline are not inevitable; they are a choice we make.

Comparative Global Wesleyan Polity - The Free Methodist Church

This is the third in an occasional series of articles comparing the different ways in which Methodist/Wesleyan denominations historically related to The United Methodist Church structure themselves as global bodies. 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.

“How big should a global Book of Discipline be? And how big should regional units that craft contextual polity be?” Those are two questions that a comparison between the Free Methodist Church and The United Methodist Church begs, especially when The Wesleyan Church is also included in the comparison.

The Free Methodist Church originated in 1860, led by B. T. Roberts and constituted from members of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The church spread to Canada in 1874 and overseas to India in 1881. Work in Africa and Latin America soon followed. Today, the denomination includes over 1.5 million members in 88 countries around the world. Over 90% of these members live outside North America, with large portions in Africa and Asia.

In many ways, the global polity of the Free Methodist Church is similar to that of The Wesleyan Church, profiled in last month’s piece on comparative global Wesleyan polity. Like The Wesleyan Church, the Free Methodist Church is composed of annual conferences (or districts in Wesleyan Church lingo), which are grouped into multiple General Conferences, all of which relate to one World Conference (or International Conference in Wesleyan Church lingo). The Free Methodist Church does not have Regional Conferences as an intermediate step towards becoming an independent General Conference, as in The Wesleyan Church. Instead, it has regional fellowships of independent General Conferences in the same geographic area of the world for the sake of camaraderie and coordination.

Free Methodist General Conferences can be smaller than those in The Wesleyan Church – only 5,000 members are required to form a General Conference. Consequently, there are more of them than in The Wesleyan Church. The Free Methodist Church has 13 General Conferences and two provisional General Conferences. Each has its own Book of Discipline. Free Methodist General Conferences are led by 1-3 bishops per General Conference.

Also like The Wesleyan Church, the Free Methodist Church has a common core that is affirmed by all General Conferences and thus binding on all Free Methodists around the world. For Free Methodists, this common core includes two chapters that are included in all Free Methodist Books of Discipline. The first contains a series of theological statements. The second includes rules about General Conferences, the World Conference, the international Council of Bishops, and the process for amending these two chapters.

For United Methodists, this two chapter constitutional core to the various Free Methodist Books of Discipline may make some think of the process of creating a United Methodist “global Book of Discipline.” The global Book of Discipline is an effort underway in the UMC to identify essential parts of the current UMC Book of Discipline which should be binding on all United Methodists everywhere and designate these as a General Book of Discipline. All other current provisions, especially those related to national property laws or specific national programmatic practices, would be left to regional bodies to determine.

Yet the Free Methodists, The Wesleyan Church, and The United Methodist Church have taken different approaches to understanding what constitutes the most important elements that should be shared by denominational compatriots around the world. For both the Free Methodist Church and The Wesleyan Church, the answer is that what’s absolutely essential for everyone in the denomination to share is some basic theological affirmations and an understanding of how they will relate to each other. As noted, for the Free Methodist Church, this core is presented in the first two chapters of all Books of Discipline, which is about three dozen pages of material. For The Wesleyan Church, this comes down to about two dozen pages of material contained in the “Charter of the International Conference of The Wesleyan Church.”

By contrast, even the stripped down General Book of Discipline in the UMC will still contain material from all six parts of the current Book of Discipline, the last part itself split into seven chapters. Work is still ongoing in developing the General Book of Discipline, yet the final product will likely come to over 200 pages, nearly twenty times as long as the common material for The Nazarene Church. Clearly, the UMC is opting for a much larger body of shared policies and procedures. There are advantages and disadvantages to such an approach, but the examples of the Free Methodists and Wesleyans should lead United Methodists to ask themselves what the advantages of a much larger shared body of policy are.

The size of the shared core of theology and polity is one question, and the size of the body elaborating the contextual aspects of theology and polity is another. For Free Methodists, these are the General Conferences and Provisional General Conferences. They are constituted on a national basis, and thus there are many of them, though not all national branches of the Free Methodist Church have become (Provisional) General Conferences. As noted, General Conferences can be as small as 5,000 people, though most are larger than this – in the 10,000s of members. In The Wesleyan Church, the General Conferences and Established National or Regional Conferences that write their own Books of Discipline can be either national or trans-national. A General Conference must have at least 15,000 members.

While this is still in progress, the bodies that will be adding contextual material to the General Book of Discipline in the UMC are likely to be the Central Conferences, which can be either national or transnational bodies. While there is no theoretical threshold membership level to become a central conference, in practice the smallest are Northern Europe and Eurasia Central Conference and the Central and Southern Europe Central Conference, both of which have just over 15,000 members. For comparison, the largest, the Congo Central conference, has 2.2 million members. The five US Jurisdictions, ranging from about a half million to over two million members in size, may be given similar authority (though creation of a new US-wide body is also an option). Such a practice is actually prohibited in the Free Methodist Church, which does not allow for more than one General Conference (and thus more than one contextual polity) in a single nation.

Looking at these three models, then, there are two correlated dimensions to the question of the bodies creating contextual polity: whether such bodies need be limited by national borders and whether it is possible to have multiple contextual polities within a single nation. Again, there are advantages and disadvantages to various answers. Nation states are not God-given, but their legal and political frameworks provide a reasonable set of contextual factors around which to adapt polity. Once these two questions are answered, then the question of size becomes in large part a practical matter based on the number of adherents within a particular subnational, national, or multi-national region.

Since the UMC is in the process of creating its General Book of Discipline, these comparative lessons from the Free Methodist Church and The Wesleyan Church are timely ones, and we would do well to learn from our sibling denominations.

The Commission on a Way Forward in the context of global UMC structural reform

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.

News broke this week about plans made by the executive committee of the Council of Bishops for the Commission on a Way Forward, the group tasked with carrying out the bishops' plan approved by General Conference to try to find a resolution to highly contentious debates on homosexuality in the UMC. You can read stories on these plans from both UMNS and the United Methodist Reporter. The press release by the Council of Bishops is also available online. In short, plans call for a commission of 20-25 people chosen by the bishops by Aug. 31 to spend the next 18 months preparing for a likely called General Conference in 2018. The Council of Bishops will update the church on the work of the commission every 4-6 weeks.

The work of the commission comes at a time when the possibility of schism over issues related to sexuality seems quite real. There are three important things to keep in mind, however, when assessing the significance of the commission for the future of the denomination.

1. The commission is not just about sexuality but about structures.

Debates over sexuality are certainly the immediate cause that led to the formation of the commission. Yet, as the bishops acknowledged in their statement, "The matters of human sexuality and unity are the presenting issues for a deeper conversation that surfaces different ways of interpreting Scripture and theological tradition."

Hence, the scope of the commission is significant: "Therefore, we should consider new ways of being in relationship across cultures and jurisdictions, in understandings of episcopacy, in contextual definitions of autonomy for annual conferences, and in the design and purpose of the apportionment. In reflection on the two matters of unity and human sexuality, we will fulfill our directive by considering 'new forms and structures' of relationship and through the 'complete examination and possible revision' of relevant paragraphs in the Book of Discipline. We will give consideration to greater freedom and flexibility to a future United Methodist Church that will redefine our present connectionality, which is showing signs of brokenness."

Phrasing the scope this way seems to be an indication by the bishops that everything about how the denomination is currently structured is on the table. Certainly, this is an indication of the severity of the situation in which the UMC finds itself. Yet despite the broad mandate, there are reasons to think that the proposals by the commission may be less than completely revolutionary. Previous study commissions authorized by General Conference have felt beholden to Wesleyan frameworks of understanding the church and its ministry and the accumulated weight of Methodist tradition. That's not to say that the commission might not propose significant changes, but just to note that tradition will constrain the range of options, even given a broad scope of possibility.

2. There is other significant work going on regarding the future of UMC structures, but the various components of that work will not necessarily be coordinated.

Darryl Stephens has provided this helpful rundown of the various referrals by General Conference of work related to the global structures and forms of ministry that characterize the UMC. In Dr. Stephens' list, the Commission on a Way Forward is only one of nine separate efforts to reshape global structures. According to Dr. Stephens, these nine referrals involve seven existing entities and four new ones, including the Commission on a Way Forward.

The degree of communication or collaboration between these nine separate efforts remains to be seen. Certainly some could proceed without much collaboration (the study of US jurisdictions and the global Social Principles, perhaps), but at some level these are all grappling with parts of a larger issue: What does it mean for the UMC to be a "global church" that operates in very different local contexts while preserving some form of connectionalism?

The Commission on a Way Forward has the potential to be influenced by the work of these other groups (though timing may not allow that completely), to ignore that work and proceed entirely on its own, to preempt that work (by proposing its own solutions or by providing for the division of the denomination), or to defer to these groups and leave aspects of reforming the church's structures to them. It is hard to say which approach it will take, but it will be interesting to see.

3. Culture is a significant factor in all discussions about church structures, theology, and sexuality in a "global" denomination.

Robert Hunt recently made this point in a series of articles on this blog (Parts [1], [2]. and [3]). Simply put, while God may be outside human culture, humans are not, and thus views on church structures, theological stances, and understandings of sexuality are all influenced though not wholly determined by culture. The Commission on a Way Forward would do well to recognize this factor.

Therefore, it would behoove the commission to benefit from the insights on the role of culture in Christianity provided by the discipline of missiology. To that end, if you are so moved, write your local bishop and suggest that she or he include a missiologist on the list of names she/he submits for the commission. Then stayed tuned for Aug. 31st to find out who is appointed!

General Conference roundup: Global structures and leaders

This is the first of several posts presenting a roundup of General Conference actions related to the foci of this blog. This first post looks at the General Conference actions related to global structures and leaders in The United Methodist Church.

General Conference approved continued work on a global Book of Discipline and global Social Principles. Proposals for a US central conference died in committee.

General Conference approved five more bishops for Africa starting in 2020, going with the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters' recommendation rather than a motion to add two new bishops immediately to Nigeria and Zimbabwe.

General Conference approved a provisional central conference for Southeast Asia and Mongolia, allowing missions there to go forward with the process of forming Annual Conferences and thereby beginning to determine their own pastoral leadership. It also approved a provisional Rwanda Annual Conference and deferred the creation of a Uganda Annual Conference to the West Africa Central Conference.

During General Conference, the Judicial Council elected N. Oswald Tweh, Sr., a Liberian, as the head of the Council, the first from outside the US to hold that position.

Responding to a request for a declaratory decision from the General Conference, the Judicial Council ruled that a Central Conference as a body, not its bishops, has the authority to set the time and place of its meetings, addressing questions regarding the 2016 meeting of the Congo Central Conference.

The next roundup, which will be posted next week, will look at actions related to mission work.

Recommended Reading: Darryl Stephens on Worldwide Guideposts for the UMC

While much has been written about the recently-concluded General Conference, I particularly recommend this piece by Rev. Dr. Darryl Stephens, which puts the bishops' "A Way Forward" proposal regarding the sexuality debate within larger organizational and historical contexts. Dr. Stephens connects this debate to larger issues of the global ambitions but US-centric structures of the denomination and links those debates to the 2008 merger of The United Methodist Church and the Methodist Protestant Church of Côte d'Ivoire. He then follows up by identifying several areas of work for the denomination if it is to live up to its global ambitions.

Recommended watching: Pre-General Conference Briefing videos

Videos from the recent Pre-General Conference Briefing in Portland in January are now available on YouTube. Now even those unable to attend the event will be able to see plenary speakers, panel discussions, and other events designed to provide information about the upcoming UMC General Conference. Videos range from approximately a half hour in length to almost an hour and a half

A complete playlist of videos is available.
Readers of this blog, however, may be most interested in one of the following sessions:
Revising the Social Principles (about plans to develop global Social Principles)
Proposals for a U.S. Central Conference
The Worldwide Nature of the Church (including discussions of a global Book of Discipline)
Restructuring Proposals (about general boards and agencies)

Philip Wingeier-Rayo: Other Models of Global Church

Today's piece is written by Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo, Associate Professor of Evangelism, Mission, and Methodist Studies at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. It is the second of a three-part series on General Conference and the global structure of the UMC.

As I mentioned in the first two parts of this blog series, the United Methodist Church can no longer ignore the growing non-US sector of the UMC, but there is an increasing cost associated with bringing together delegates from around the world for an often ineffective meeting at General Conference. While I enjoy being part of a global church, I have come to the realization that it is not the most cost-effective way to organize an international body.

One proposal to address this problem is for a Global Book of Discipline that will move all the binding polity for the global church into one section that can be addressed at GC. This is important because the UMC functions in a variety of languages, cultures and under several governments with different laws that affect how the church must relate to the state. The remaining sections of the Book of Discipline will allow for changes by the Central Conferences for the church to function within the local context. The Global Book of Discipline will be available for review and discussion at the 2016 GC, but will not be eligible for adoption until 2020.

While these are positive incremental changes, I feel that they do not go far enough. Before joining the UMC, the EUB Church facilitated the independence of its former mission churches around the world. The PC(USA) and the Episcopal Churches have done the same; the latter maintains a connection to those churches through the worldwide body of the Anglican Communion.

The current configuration of the global United Methodist Church is still a holdover from the traditional mission model with the U.S. at the center, and former mission churches at the periphery. As I mentioned in my first blog, some of those Methodist Churches in Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, India, and Latin America and the Caribbean became autonomous, while those in Africa, Europe and the Philippines did not. This would be tantamount to some of the 13 American colonies choosing independence and some remaining part of England.

I would like to propose picking up the work of the COSMOS commission in the 1960s to have conversations with the Central Conference churches, while also retaining a commitment to connectionalism. This would be a model more in line with other Protestant churches as well as the Wesley spirit of equality and appreciation of diversity.

Here are two real examples of how this might look. The first is the Sol Africa project. Recently I had the privilege of attending the 10-year anniversary of the Sol Africa project that brings together the Portuguese-speaking Methodist Churches in Brazil, Mozambique, Angola, and Portugal to share resources. This project joins both autonomous and United Methodist churches, as well as human and monetary resources to carry out the mission of the church.

These churches share publications, as well as human and material resources, to train future leaders, produce Sunday School materials and rebuild Methodist training institutions that were damaged during civil strife in Mozambique and Angola under the guidance of the General Board of Higher Education & Ministry and Discipleship Ministries. Part of this project is distributing E-readers uploaded with Bible commentaries and theology books, many published by Methodist authors, to pastors and seminary students.

The Cuba-Florida Covenant is another example of a ministry that goes beyond the United Methodist Church, yet honors past relationships. Historically the Methodist Church in Florida has played an intricate role in the growth of Cuban Methodism. Many mission churches in Cuba were started and built by Florida churches in the 1930s, 40s and 50s. After the Cuban revolution in 1959 and the beginning of the embargo in 1961, the two countries (and churches) went their own way. The Methodist Church in Cuba gained its autonomy in 1968 and went through three very difficult decades of tense church-state relations under a Socialist government.

Beginning in the 1990s the church underwent a charismatic revival, which transformed its theology and practice according to its ministry context. Gone were the formalities of bulletins, hymnals, and organ music, and in were extemporaneous prayers, praise music, guitars and maracas. I lived through six years of this charismatic renewal as a missionary in Cuba (1991-97) and observed many positive attributes, such as adapting to current realities and contexts, that we can all learn from our Cuban brothers and sisters.[1]

The Cuba-Florida covenant was signed in 1997 by the Florida Annual Conference and the autonomous affiliated Methodist Church in Cuba, and since then has facilitated 198 partnerships between local churches and districts.These are two ecclesial bodies that could not be more different culturally, liturgically and theologically. I cannot imagine these two churches having to function under the umbrella of one General Conference or one Book of Discipline--which is fine. Neither should the Cubans impose their beliefs and practices on the American church, nor should the Americans impose their beliefs and practices on the Cuban church. Both are in ministry in their distinctive contexts and cultures. The Cuba-Florida Covenant operates despite the obvious differences, respecting each others’ autonomy, yet allowing districts and churches to covenant to pray, visit and even support one another in more concrete ways.

If the Wesleyan connection between Cuba and Florida is still strong after 55-years with no diplomatic ties between the U.S. and Cuba, then certainly the connection between Methodist churches around the world can retain their historical relationships while we move away from a neocolonial mission model to one that is more adaptable to local contexts and cultures. The current model is a leftover configuration without a sound biblical or theological justification. It is frozen in time when the work of the COSMOS commission was interrupted by the unification talks between the former Methodist and EUB churches.

Rather than having an unequal and arbitrary division with some former mission churches being autonomous affiliated and others as United Methodist, I call on the church to consider a more equal model that encourages all churches to create culturally appropriate ecclesial structures, while remaining connectional, for the greater mission to “make disciples for Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.”

---

[1] Philip Wingeier-Rayo, Cuba Methodism: The Untold Story of Survival and Revival, 2^nd edition, Atlanta, GA: Dolphins and Orchids, 2006.

This is what the marriage debate looks like in Liberia

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.

You've heard the story before: A United Methodist conference is debating whether or not to change its policies regarding marriage.  There is a debate about sexual morality.  There are protestors that disrupt the conference with singing and handmade signs.  There are debates about who can qualify for ordained leadership positions.  The Book of Discipline and the global nature of the church are invoked to support positions.

The above description would fit any of the many General Conference or American Annual Conference debates about homosexuality, same sex marriage, and ordination of LGBTQ persons.  Yet the story I had in mind is actually a recent one from Liberia's 2015 Annual Conference, where the question of whether divorced clergy could be eligible to become bishops was hotly debated, as you can read about here and here.

Some background: The Liberia Annual Conference has for a long time barred divorced clergy from running for election as bishop.  This provision is unique to Liberia; it is not part of the Book of Discipline.  Thus, a number of laity representatives to the Annual Conference petitioned to have the rule changed, arguing that Liberia should use the same standards for bishops as the rest of the UMC.  The clergy dissented, arguing that it was necessary for bishops to adhere to a higher standard of sexual morality.  While those in favor of changing the rule protested at Annual Conference, ultimately the final vote upheld the rule.

There are several interesting things about this story.  First are its parallels to American arguments, but parallels that scramble the American alignments between existing policy, the Book of Discipline, and views about sexual morality.  The second interesting facet is that those in favor of the change were initially almost entirely laity, whereas those opposed to the change were initially entirely clergy.  It's rare to see that sort of total clergy/laity split in American Methodism.  Finally, it's a good reminder that the contours of debates about marriage and sexuality vary by context, as this blog has previously pointed out for Kenya.  That doesn't make American debates unimportant, but it should help Americans put their debates in perspective.

Will sexuality debate again derail UMC's efforts to become a more global denomination?

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.

Last week, I listed a run-down of the various systemic changes that are underway in The United Methodist Church related to becoming a more global denomination.  These include a set of global Social Principles, a global Book of Discipline, and adding more bishops to Africa.  I also mentioned the debate on human sexuality, which has potential implications for global polity.

In examining the timeline for these various plans for the denomination, one can see a potential problem.  The first three proposals, related to the Social Principles, Book of Discipline, and bishops, are intending to collect information at General Conference 2016 but not take final action until General Conference 2020.  The debate over sexuality is likely to come to a head in 2016, and most proposals surrounding that debate are focused on 2016 only.

Thus, these conflicting timelines present a danger: that the UMC could make dramatic changes in polity in 2016 to resolve debates about human sexuality that would derail longer-term, more deliberate efforts to develop a more globally-even and less US-centric polity in 2020.  Of course, not all proposals to resolve the sexuality debates significantly alter UMC polity, and the proposal from the official Connectional Table does not do so.  Nevertheless, a larger number of the other proposals do call for significantly altering how the UMC is structured in the US and abroad.

In pointing out this potential problem, I am not arguing against all changes in UMC polity, nor am I arguing against resolving debates over human sexuality.  What I am arguing is that changes in polity hastily made to resolve one issue are likely to cause a large number of other problems.  I think the processes in place to develop global Social Principles and a global Book of Discipline are promising processes and must be allowed to play out without being short-circuited by American Methodists' need to resolve their issues regarding sexuality.  That is an important issue needing resolution, but the Central Conferences' need to see changes in polity for the sake of greater local flexibility and greater equality with the US must not be sacrificed for the sake of primarily American concerns.

Many readers will remember that at General Conference 2008, a series of resolutions were passed that significantly changed UMC polity to make the denomination less thoroughly US-centric.  These resolutions, though passed by General Conference, were voted down in the Annual Conferences, in large part over fears that they would have opened the door to greater acceptance of homosexuality.  At that time, the sexuality debate derailed the UMC's efforts to become a more global denomination.  We must not let the same thing happen again in 2016.

Change is afoot as UMC looks toward more global future at GC2016, GC2020

The past several weeks have been significant ones for The United Methodist Church in its efforts to move toward a more global footing as a denomination that does not privilege American Methodism as the standard for the denomination.  The church has seen developments in several areas related to this broader shift with implications for the General Conferences in both 2016 and 2020.  Here's a rundown:

First, as previously report on this blog, the General Board of Church and Society wrapped up its series of seven consultations on the development of a global Social Principles with two consultations in Washington, DC.  These consultations will lead to a proposal to GC2016 to authorize a series of public hearings in the next quadrennium, which could ultimately lead to approval at GC2020 of a reorganization of Social Principles into globally-applicable and locally-specific lists.  The Social Principles constitute Part V of the Book of Discipline, the denomination-wide set of guidelines for United Methodists.

On a parallel track to the development of global Social Principles is the effort to develop a global Book of Discipline.  This project would involve separating the Book of Discipline into portions which are binding on all United Methodists and portions which may be altered according to context.  The problem of defining that context intersects with questions about the current structure of the UMC in which the church outside the US is divided into Central Conferences and the church within the US is divided into Jurisdictions.  Presumably, a plan for a global Book of Discipline could change that structure.  At its recent meeting in Maputo, Mozambique, the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters discussed possible alterations to Part VI of the Discipline, the section on "Organization and Administration" of the church.  The plan here is to seek input on proposed changes at GC2016 but not ask for a vote until GC2020.  This was also an issue of discussion for the Council of Bishops at their recent meeting in Dallas, TX, and will again appear on their agenda when they next meet in Berlin, Germany, in May.

Speaking of bishops, the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters has also recommended the creation of five next bishoprics in Africa.  The committee is preparing legislation for GC2016 that would authorize a study during the next quadrennium to develop proposals for GC2020 that would authorize changes to the number and boundaries of episcopal areas in Africa.  Such a proposal would obviously benefit ministry in Africa, but it would also continue to change the composition of the Council of Bishops to more reflect the global nature of the church and could also become connected to any proposals to change the Central Conferences structure as it currently exists.

Finally, also in Maputo, Mozambique, the Connectional Table held their third and final panel on human sexuality, focusing on views from outside the United States.  This panel was followed by a proposal from the Connectional Table to amend church law that prohibits clergy from officiating at same-sex weddings and prohibits the ordination of openly gay, lesbian, bisexual, and otherwise queer clergy.  Instead, clergy would be able to determine for themselves whom to marry, and conferences would be able to decide whom to ordain.  While the debate on human sexuality has been most heated in the United States, this development is globally relevant because of the difference in views on sexuality between the United States and Africa and because many American United Methodists have linked the issue of human sexuality with the debate about a possible restructuring of the Central Conferences and Jurisdictions.  Blogger Jeremy Smith has compiled a list of proposals related to human sexuality and church structure that give a sense of the various ways in which the two issues are being connected.  Whereas the above three issues involve action at both GC2016 and GC2020, most proposals on this front are directed at GC2016 alone.

Talking about a global denomination

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.

This blog has been dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of the UMC, but fortunately, we're not the only show in town doing that.  Various other groups within The United Methodist Church also recognize the pressing importance of issues related to how we structure our common life as a global denomination.  I've reported in the past about the Worldwide Nature of the Church's survey (now closed) which seeks input where to locate decision-making for American issues within a global denomination.  I'd like to highlight two other forms these conversations are taking and how you can be involved.

The first of these is a series of consultations that are happening to help develop a set of global Social Principles for the denomination.  This previous post describes the genesis of the idea of developing a less US-centric and more globally applicable set of Social Principles for the denomination.  That process is being facilitated by seven consultations about the Social Principles in various locations around the denomination: one in the Philippines, three in Africa, one in Europe, and two in the United States.  Each consultation will include about 20 United Methodists meeting for 2-3 days to address three questions:
1. What role do the current Social Principles play in enhancing the mission and ministry of The United Methodist Church?
2. How much or how well have the current Social Principles served to empower mission and ministry in your geographical area?
3. What might globally relevant Social Principles look like?

The exciting part about this process is that there's a chance for you to be involved.  The consultation in the Philippines has already happened, and applications for the consultations in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mozambique are already closed.  Nevertheless, the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) is still taking applications for consultations in Nigeria, the Czech Republic, and the US.  The deadline for the Nigeria consultation is soon - Sept. 15.  The deadline for the Czech Republic is Oct. 15, and the deadline for both US consultations is Dec. 15.

The other conversation about the global structure of the church was a panel discussion during the recent meeting of the Board of Ordained Ministry (BOM) of the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry (GBHEM).  The panel discussed what a global Book of Discipline would mean for ordained ministry, the concern being that some of the current requirements for ordained ministry presume an American context.  Video of the discussion is on YouTube, and the first eight minutes provides an excellent overview of the denomination's plans for a global Book of Discipline.  While it's obviously too late to participate in this conversation, the entire thing is well worth a watch and then a conversation with other United Methodists.