Bayanihan and Connectionalism

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.

The United Methodist leaders from Asia, Africa, and Europe behind the Christmas Covenant, the first major piece of UMC legislation from outside the United States, have identified three guiding principles behind that legislation: We are all children of God, ubuntu, and bayanihan. Two of these principles are notable in drawing on non-Western cultural concepts.

In the spirit of cross-cultural dialogue, I will treat the statement of these principles as an invitation to the whole church to engage in theological reflection on ubuntu and bayanihan and consider how these concepts can contain lessons for Methodist/Wesleyan theological thinking in other contexts as well. In this post, I will reflect on the connection between bayanihan and connectionalism. In a previous post, I reflected on the connection between ubuntu and sanctification.

The description of bayanihan offered by the Christmas Covenant reads as follows:

Bayanihan is a cherished ancient Filipino concept of community spirit and cooperation to achieve communal goals. Rooted in the word bayan, which means nation or community, bayanihan has been traditionally expressed through concrete community support for families that need to relocate. The able- bodied persons of the barrio carry the entire wood and bamboo house and transfers it to a new location, especially in anticipation of typhoons, floods, and landslides. This might be rare in these modern times, but the spirit of bayanihan is alive in the hearts of Filipinos when they act as one community in support of one another in times of need, even when it is deemed impossible to do so.

This description of cooperation towards communal goals made me think about connectionalism.

When I think about connectionalism, I tend to think about it both as an ecclesiology and as a practice. As an ecclesiology, connectionalism refers to the belief that the nature of the church is located in the connections among local congregations. In that sense, it is a counter to congregationalism, which proclaims that a local congregation is fully the church by itself. Connectionalism as an ecclesiology says (in perhaps an ubuntu sort of way) that local congregations can only be the church in connection with one another.

As a practice, connectionalism refers to the ways in which congregations and other denominational entities (annual, central, and jurisdictional conferences; boards and agencies; committees and commissions; etc.) collaborate in mission and ministry. Here, I tend to think of connectionalism as expressing a "we can do more together" sentiment.

The parallels between bayanihan and connectionalism as a practice are perhaps easy to see. Both refer to collective action, to mutual ministry carried out in cooperation.

But thinking about connectionalism through the lens of bayanihan highlighted two dimensions of connectionalism that I had not given full attention to previously.

First, bayanihan really connects the ecclesiological and the practical elements of connectionalism. Bayan means community, and so the practice of bayanihan is rooted in a sense of shared communal identity. That shared communal identity is perhaps analogous to the ecclesiological understanding of connectionalism: We are the church together. And it is that shared bayan communal identity that makes the practice of bayanihan cooperation possible. We can practice connectionalism when we believe we are a connection.

Second, bayanihan highlights for me the reciprocity in connectionalism. Bayanihan is about each member of the community contributing to communal projects, but it is also about potentially any member of the community who happens to be in need (because their house has been endangered) being able to receive help from the community. It is about "support of one another" in a mutual give and take.

I think that view helps resolve a debate among US United Methodists about whether connectional institutions exist to serve congregations or to allow congregations to serve in broader ways. This debate is expressed through criticisms of agencies as too top-down or of congregations as always wanting to do their own thing regardless of where the rest of the church is focused.

A bayanihan understanding of connectionalism suggests that connectionalism exists both to serve congregations and to allow congregations to serve. The principle of bayanihan suggests that connectionalism exists to allow congregations to support one another in their ministry. Sometimes that means the congregations are willing to contribute work and resources towards goals that the entire group has identified (probably through conference structures). Sometimes that means that the entire group works to support individual congregations that are struggling or negatively impacted by significant events. Connectionalism goes both ways.

I have intended these two pieces reflecting on principles from the Christmas Covenant to model intercultural theological reflection and an openness to learn from concepts from other cultural backgrounds. I hope these examples inspire more such dialogue in our connection.

Ubuntu and Sanctification

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.

The United Methodist leaders from Asia, Africa, and Europe behind the Christmas Covenant, the first major piece of UMC legislation from outside the United States, have identified three guiding principles behind that legislation: We are all children of God, ubuntu, and bayanihan. Two of these principles are notable in drawing on non-Western cultural concepts.

In the spirit of cross-cultural dialogue, I will treat the statement of these principles as an invitation to the whole church to engage in theological reflection on ubuntu and bayanihan and consider how these concepts can contain lessons for Methodist/Wesleyan theological thinking in other contexts as well. In this post, I will reflect on the connection between ubuntu and sanctification. In another, I will reflect on the connection between bayanihan and connectionalism.

The description of ubuntu offered by the Christmas Covenant reads as follows:

Ubuntu is an African concept that embodies a way of life where humanity is based on the understanding of interdependence and community life. It is lived recognizing that we are all created in the image of God and should do unto others as we wish it be done unto us. Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa declares, “The profound truth is, you cannot be human on your own. ... You are human because you participate in relationship. It says a person is a person through other persons. This is what we say. This is what the Bible says. This is what our human experience teaches us.”

The comments here on the image of God and the inability to be human on one's own made me think of the Wesleyan concept of sanctification.

According to Wesleyan theology, humans are created in the image of God. Sin, however, mars and defaces that image of God. Salvation, then, is about the restoration of the image of God in us through a two-step process: First, in justification, our guilt is removed. Second, through the on-going process of sanctification, we are made more holy, which is to say, more loving towards God and other humans.

I've known and believed this theological account for a long time and have looked at the concept of sanctification in particular as key to what it meant to be Methodist, one of the unique Methodist contributions to the pool of Christian theological insight.

I will admit, however, that, coming from an individualistic cultural background, I had understood the process of salvation and sanctification in primarily individual terms. Yes, sanctification was about growing in love for others, but it was a process that played out in the individual, or so I thought.

Meditating on the concept of ubuntu called that individualistic understanding into question for me. If we think about salvation as a process of being restored to true humanity (as encapsulated in the image of God), then ubuntu suggests that true humanity must be interpersonal, not merely individual. We are persons through other persons, and so we become saved persons through the salvation of our relationships with other persons. It is not possible to be sanctified, and thus not possible to be truly saved, apart from our relationships with others. Thus, the concept of ubuntu highlighted for me the interpersonal and communal nature of salvation and sanctification.

Seen in this way, then, the Wesley conjunction of personal and social holiness takes on a new light. Personal and social holiness are no longer two concepts that must be held together despite a tendency to fall apart. Much less are they two opposing concepts that people are asked to line up behind in a soft-pedaled version of the fundamentalist/social gospel or evangelical/progressive debate.

No, personal and social holiness are instead two logically interconnected aspects of what it means to be a full and sanctified human in light of the concept of ubuntu. Being a full human who lives up to the highest ideals of humanity necessarily involves connection to God (personal holiness) and love towards others (social holiness). Anything else would be an incomplete and truncated humanity.

(Incidentally, I think the Chinese Confucian concept of ren can be used as an interpretive lens for sanctification in much the same way. One bit of cross-cultural theology begets another.)

There are many further consequences of this ubuntu-informed understanding of sanctification that I do not have time or space to explore here. Relative to the current state of the UMC, one could probably reflect on what such an ubuntu-informed understanding of sanctification means for relations among different groups of Christians.

Let me conclude, therefore, by reiterating that reflecting on the concept of ubuntu challenged my theological thinking and suggested new insights to me. I hope it can do the same for you.

The Central Conferences and Current UMC Politics

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.

United Methodists are anxiously waiting this week to learn whether General Conference will meet this year in August, or whether it will be again postponed until 2024. The Commission on General Conference met last Thursday to make a decision and promised an announcement within a week.

As we wait, it is worth taking a moment to reflect on how recent events have revealed the ways in which United Methodists from the central conferences have become central to current UMC politics.

The basic question behind whether General Conference will happen this year or not is whether Central Conference delegates can participate in sufficient numbers to make a 2022 General Conference a acceptably representative body for the church as a whole.

While there are differences of opinion as to how much participation is necessary and how to best facilitate that participation, pretty much all voices in the debate about General Conference recognize that at this point in the denomination's development, it is impossible to fairly make decisions without the inclusion of United Methodists from outside the United States. The central conferences are a crucial part of the UMC's body politic.

Whenever the General Conference does meet again, one of the major pieces of legislation it will consider is the Christmas Covenant. This legislative package, designed to regionalize the governance of The United Methodist Church, was developed and submitted by United Methodists from outside the United States. It is the first major legislation in the denomination to originate in this way.

Whatever the fate of the Christmas Covenant legislation will be, it is a sign that United Methodists from outside the United States are committed to shaping the agenda of the denomination, not just content to comment on an agenda developed by groups within the United States.

Recent debates about both whether to hold General Conference and the legislation before it have revealed a diversity of opinions among General Conference delegates from outside the United States. United Methodists from Africa both decried and lauded the WCA's vaccine mandate. United Methodists from Africa, the Philippines, and Europe wrote and signed on to letters both asking for General Conference to be held and asking for it to be delayed. United Methodists from around the world have spoken for and against the Protocol and the Christmas Covenant.

It's not just that Europeans have different opinions than Africans. There are differences within regions too. The Africa Initiative and the Africa Voice of Unity have different opinions. Not all Nigerians agree on the church's future. There are diversities of opinions across continents, between countries, and within national branches of the UMC.

United Methodists from the central conferences are not just raising a voice within the denomination; they are raising many voices, which are saying a variety of things about what the denomination should do and be. Indeed, the diversity of positions taken by United Methodists around the world show the fallacy of referring to "the central conferences" as a single entity (as this article admittedly does).

All of these developments represent a departure for The United Methodist Church. For decades, United Methodists outside the United States were an afterthought for those within the United States.

Then, when US United Methodists began to recognize the significance of General Conference delegates from the central conferences, they frequently treated those delegates as votes to be wrangled on whatever US-defined matters were before the General Conference. Too often, these votes were also seen as a bloc, or at least delegates from each continent were viewed as a bloc. How will Africans vote on such-and-such an issue, US United Methodists wondered?

Recent developments have shown that the time in which US United Methodists can think in this way is over. Not only do such views betray colonialist attitudes and assumptions on the part of US United Methodists, they do not reflect the realities of the denomination as it now is. United Methodists from Africa, the Philippines, and Europe are asserting their views and shaping debates about the denomination, as they should.

These are necessary developments. For a variety of theological, ethical, practical, and demographic reasons, the United Methodist Church can no longer afford to be a US-dominated denomination. It must learn to live into a new reality as a multinational, multicultural entity with a variety of contributions and perspectives from around the world shaping it.

Fortunately for us all, United Methodists from the central conferences--that is, from many countries and cultures in Africa, from throughout the Philippines, from a variety of contexts in Europe--are leading the way into this future.

Recommended Viewing: Christmas Covenant Webinars

Over the course of this spring, the Christmas Covenant has sponsored a series of webinars in the Philippines and Africa to inform about and promote the Christmas Covenant legislation. Videos from those webinars are available on the Christmas Covenant YouTube channel.

The webinar for the Philippines features Bishops Francisco and Juan, presentations by team members about the Christmas Covenant and the Protocol, and a time of questions and answers. Portions of that presentation are in Tagalog, though the majority of the presentation is in English.

There are three webinars for Africa--one each in English, Portuguese, and French.

The English webinar features Bishops Wandabula, Muyombo, Nhanala, and Nhiwatiwa; presentations by team members about the Christmas Covenant; and a time of questions and answers.

The Portuguese webinar features Bishops Nhanala of Mozambique and Domingos of Angola, presentations by team members about the Christmas Covenant, and a time of questions and answers. Some of the presentations are in English, with translation into Portuguese.

The French webinar has not yet been posted to the Christmas Covenant YouTube channel, though readers are encouraged to check back to see if the video is published in the future.

Recommended Reading: Out of Chaos: Creation Statement

Last Friday, the "Out of Chaos: Creation" group released a new "vision map," a statement outlining a vision for the future of The United Methodist Church. This vision emerges not only from the ideas of the steering group members, but from feedback submitted by United Methodists around the world through surveys and two webinars. The statement situates itself within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It presents a series of affirmations about who the UMC is/should be, a set of "table manners" that should characterize United Methodists' interactions with one another, and five areas for action.

Major emphases of the statement include a call for continued unity, combined with a call for the full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ individuals in the church and a call for reform of neo-colonialist structures within The United Methodist Church. In its call for continued unity with greater regionalization, it shares something with the Christmas Covenant's recent press release or the Statement of Church Unity from the Africa Voice of Unity, though both of these statements do not call for full inclusion. (The Africa Voice of Unity statement is explicit about this point.) In this regard, the European bishops' "Our Commitment" statement, which was released yesterday, is perhaps closer in spirit, though the Out of Chaos: Creation statement is stronger on the point of LGBTQIA+ inclusion.

Like the Africa Voices of Unity statement, the Out of Choas: Creation statement explicitly condemns racism. The Out of Chaos: Creation statement is also concerned with ecclesiology and how members of the church relate to each other, including through the process of Christian conferencing. These foci also distinguish the Out of Chaos: Creation statement from other recent statements in the church.

For further information about the statement, see this UMNS article and this EmK article.

Regionalization Would Have Prevented Some Problems with Delaying General Conference 2020

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.

The General Conference that was scheduled to meet in May 2020 has already been delayed once and may be forced to be delayed a second time or transition to an alternative technology-mediated format. There have been a variety of challenges associated with these postponements, from the administrative to larger questions about the future of the denomination.

At this point, the denomination must find a way forward from this situation in which it finds itself. Yet it is worth point out that greater regionalization of the denomination would have prevented some problems stemming from delaying General Conference. The possibility of a church split in the United States best illustrates how regionalization could have reduced the challenges of delaying General Conference.

One of the major pieces of legislation before General Conference, whenever it next meets, is the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. This proposal, which is the result of mediated negotiation among mostly US United Methodist leaders from across the theological spectrum, would pave the way for the exit of Traditionalist churches with a $25 million payment to help found a new denomination. Traditionalist churches in the United States have been increasingly restive to leave the denomination in the fallout of General Conference 2019, when it became clear that Centrists and Progressives would not abide by the provisions of the Traditional Plan passed at that event.

Even amid the pandemic, Traditionalists remain focused on passing the Protocol in 2021, despite questions about whether and how General Conference will meet. They have even suggested that General Conference should convene just to take up the single issue of the Protocol. Yet the longer it is until General Conference meets, the more time there is for the negotiated consensus behind the Protocol to collapse or challenges to come from other corners, such as the African bishops.

The challenge, of course, is that passing the Protocol requires General Conference to meet, since there is no polity structure for the United States capable of implementing the Protocol within the United States, and there are numerous logistical challenges to bringing together delegates from around the world, either in person or digitally, to implement the Protocol globally.

If, however, there was a regional structure that had the ability to make some budgetary, policy, and legal decisions for the UMC in the United States, that body could potentially take up the issue of church separation in the United States. A special meeting of a US regional structure could have provided for such separation, satisfying Traditionalists' calls for a speedy departure, even if larger questions about the global connection remained.

While a schism may extend to the entire global connection, the greatest pressure for a legal and financial separation comes from within the United States. Since the United States funds 99% of the denomination's budget, it might have been possible to arrange a payout within the United States alone. And the logistical and health questions surrounding a United States-only meeting are much easier to handle than the international meeting that is General Conference.

Of course, such a regional structure does not currently exist. But it could.

The Christmas Covenant, the first major legislative package originating in the central conference, would create a system of regionalization within the UMC that would allow regional contexts, including the United States, greater flexibility in handling their own missional and administrative affairs.

It is too late for such a system of regionalization to mitigate the issues associated with delaying General Conference 2020. Passing the Christmas Covenant is not necessary to pass the Protocol, if indeed the latter does pass.

But it is not too late to implement a system of regionalization to give the church greater flexibility to adapt to the next crisis facing one of its branches. The Christmas Covenant represents one opportunity to do so.

Recommended Viewing: Christmas Covenant Videos

The United Methodists behind the Christmas Covenant, a package of legislation designed to promote regionalization and contextualization within The United Methodist Church, have begun releasing a series of videos related to the Christmas Covenant. The short videos (2-7 minutes) feature various supporters of the Christmas Covenant from around the world speaking in a variety of languages about the proposal. The group's Facebook page gives brief introductions to the videos as well. These videos are a significant opportunity not only to learn about an important piece of legislation for the next General Conference but also to hear and learn from a variety of voices around the world. New videos continue to be added to the YouTube channel, so it is worth subscribing or checking back so as not to miss new content.

What Happens If GC2021 Does Not Happen? Part I: Denominational Division

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.

Politico recently published a piece entitled “Here’s How the Pandemic Finally Ends.” The piece, which is based on interviews with a large number of epidemiologists, is predominantly focused on the United States, though it includes some thoughts on the rest of the world toward the end.

Two passages are worth lifting up: First, “this is how it could happen in the United States: By November 2021, most Americans have received two doses of a vaccine that, while not gloriously effective, fights the disease in more cases than not. Meanwhile, Americans continue to wear masks and avoid large gatherings.” Second, “[Zeke] Emanuel anticipates countries opening up international travel as they get and deploy vaccines, but that “it’s going to take a couple or three years to really get … a full return to pre-Covid normalcy” in international travel.”

Taken together, these two insights—that large gatherings in the US may not happen until late in 2021 and international travel may be difficult until 2022 or 2023—indicate that there is a real possibility that a 2020 General Conference delayed to late August/early September of 2021 will still not be possible. Such a gathering may need to be delayed longer, and in an extreme case, may not happen until the regularly scheduled General Conference in 2024.

What would this mean for the church if General Conference 2020/2021 does not happen?

The United Methodist Church is in many ways set up to function without regular input from General Conference. After all, even normally, the body only meets once every four years. The denomination could certainly go a bit longer without an updated Book of Resolutions or updated hymnal, and it would be fine. Even some improvements which would be nice to have could wait, and things could run as they have in the meantime.

But General Conference is still necessary to fix immediate problems in the denomination and to keep the machinery of the denomination running. In particular, General Conference 2020/2021 is important to address the issue of denominational division and to provide for the 3 B’s of Methodist bureaucracy: budgets, boards, and bishops.

With a further delayed General Conference, The United Methodist Church will need to figure out other avenues to address these two challenges. This piece will look at the first question—denominational division—and a subsequent piece will look at budgets, boards, and bishops.

Denominational Division
The Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) has indicated that it is planning to leave The United Methodist Church no matter whether General Conference 2021 happens, and no matter what happens at General Conference 2021 if it does happen. Their intention to form a new denomination has been clearly stated, planning for the new denomination has continued to proceed even amid the pandemic, and the groundwork for the new denomination is now already well laid.

At the beginning of 2020, it looked like the WCA would leave as part of a grand deal struck among US Traditionalists, centrists, and progressives, with leadership from the central conferences. This deal was embodied in the Protocol for Reconciliation through Separation and Grace, a legislative proposal for General Conference 2020. But without a General Conference, there is no Protocol.

The Protocol offers the WCA two things: rhetorical cover for leaving the denomination without seeming like they lost the fight and $25 million. The train of WCA withdrawal may be far enough out of the station that the first consideration is no longer necessary, and given the terrible state of denominational finances, it is likely that the WCA realizes that the $25 million may not actually be available. Thus, they may decide that whatever amount is available is not be worth waiting around for.

If the Protocol does not happen, it raises questions about how the WCA will leave the UMC. There are long-standing provisions for local churches to leave the denomination, and General Conference 2019 created a new provision (Paragraph 2553) for departures, though the status of that paragraph is somewhat in question due to voting irregularities at General Conference 2019. Less clear is the ability of annual conferences, either in the United States or elsewhere around the world, to unilaterally leave the denomination without action of General Conference. Does the WCA leave as a series of local churches, or do some annual conferences decide to unilaterally depart? At stake is a series of potential lawsuits, if those remaining in the UMC decide they are worth bringing.

The WCA has made clear their intent to be a global denomination. What then happens in the Central Conferences? Russia, for instance, would likely want to leave en masse. Again, does this happen unilaterally, or is there an attempt to go through the (much slower) BOD-provided means for a central conference becoming autonomous, which require eventual General Conference action. What happens elsewhere in Eastern Europe, where attitudes on sexuality are conservative, but ties to Western Europe are important? Europeans were likely to resolve these issues themselves, but do they decide not to wait for General Conference to do their own restructuring?

It is possible that entire annual conferences depart in some places in Africa (perhaps Liberia, for instance), but in many other areas (the Congo, for instance), it seems that the bishops are trying to resist efforts to leave the denomination. Divisions are likely, but local divisions in the UMC in various African nations have happened before without most people at General Conference even being aware of them.

Restructuring the Remaining United Methodist Church
If the WCA leaves before a postponed GC, that also means the Protocol becomes unnecessary when General Conference does finally meet. Thus, if denominational division happens before a postponed General Conference can meet, the most important piece of legislation facing such a General Conference would not be the by-then irrelevant Protocol, but the Christmas Covenant, which would remain a vital component for restructuring the remaining UMC on a more equitable basis.

In that regard, it would be interesting to see whether those promoting the Christmas Covenant and the US as a Regional Conference, which are similar but not identical packages of legislation, would continue to work in harmony, as the Connectional Table has thus far implied, or whether these two plans would come to be seen as competing versions of regional restructuring. The Christmas Covenant is likely to have better support outside the US, and thus it is the more likely vision to win out.

Of course, it is difficult to predict what the political forces at work in a post-separation without the Protocol United Methodist Church would look like two or three years from now. Still, the Christmas Covenant should be required reading for those thinking about the future of the denomination. The rest we will have to wait and see.

Recommended Reading: Christmas Covenant Legislation

The legislation from the Christmas Covenant group is now publicly available online.

As the subtitle for the legislative package indicates, this legislation is intended to create "An Equitable Structure of Global Regionalism." The eight petitions draw upon but go beyond the Connectional Table's proposal to create a US Regional Conference. The Christmas Covenant legislation also converts central conferences into regional conferences, thereby establishing parity across the world.

The legislation was developed primarily by United Methodist leaders outside of the United States, especially from the Philippines. The principles of the Christmas Covenant have been endorsed by leaders from the Philippines, multiple African countries, and Norway. The Philippines Annual Conference - Cavite voted last month to endorse the legislation and send it to General Conference. In so doing, PAC - Cavite linked the Christmas Covenant and the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation together.

The Christmas Covenant proposal has also received support from within the United States. General Conference delegates from Florida and the Western Jurisdiction have indicated their intention to support it, in conjunction with the Protocol. The Inter-Ethnic Strategy and Development Group has asked that the Christmas Covenant be the first item of business to be considered by General Conference, to be followed by the Protocol.

The Christmas Covenant regionalization plan is thus one of the central proposals that will come before General Conference, and this legislation deserves to be closely read and carefully considered by all General Conference delegates.

Igmedio Domingo: Philippine Central Conference Perspective on the Future of The United Methodist Church

Today’s post is by Rev. Igmedio Domingo, District Superintendent of the Southwest Metro Manila District in the Manila Episcopal Area and a signer of the Christmas Covenant. The post contains remarks made by Rev. Domingo at the Pre-General Conference Briefing. They are republished here with his permission.

I am honored and privileged to represent the Philippines Central Conference in this post. We seek to assert our rights within our Connection, and our desire to be included as an equal part of the global United Methodist Church - not just seen and treated as a subordinate member of our faith community.

OUR VISION FOR THE UMC IN PHILIPPINES
Our vision AS A CHURCH in the Philippines is strongly founded and deeply anchored in the visionary prayer of Jesus “THAT THEY MAY BE ALL ONE” (John 17). We are one in mission, ministries, and service to all people, especially the marginalized and excluded, who are in need of God’s compassionate love.  Our vision of “unity in mission” is grounded in our unique Filipino cultural and political context wherein we continue to struggle against colonial influences. It is in our work to share the gospel of love that binds us. Our polity needs to reflect this vision.

We envision a Philippines Central Conference where human dignity, human rights, and the integrity of all people are upheld. We envision a United Methodist Church that respects and honors all, regardless of their race and ethnicity, political views, class, location, age, gender and gender identity, and sexual orientation. I believe that being Wesleyan means that we extend grace and love to all. We need to work for a church that promotes the highest standard of equality, justice, and fairness. There is too much arrogance, division, violence, and hate in our society and unfortunately, even in our church. Our division has brought so much agony, frustration, and pain in the body of Christ. Thus, our witness and mission to make disciples of Jesus for the transformation of the world have suffered.

WE ARE ONE IN OUR STRUGGLE FOR UNITY
Extrajudicial killings, the murder of innocent lives, political and economic oppression, and even the murder of church people fighting for justice are the historical elements that continue to inspire us in the Philippines to raise our voices in this season before General Conference, that WE ARE STRONGLY UNITED, WE ARE DEEPLY ENGAGED IN MISSION and STRONGLY COMMITTED IN SERVICE.

As a central conference, we have a distinct missional context. We have a diverse culture with many languages. We minister in a country of 1,641 islands. We have three episcopal areas: Baguio (Ilocano region), Manila (Tagalog region), and Davao (Visayan region). We have differences in culture, location, language, and theological leanings, but we are united in being United Methodists. Our voice as a central conference has to be heard and our context understood and respected. Central conference perspectives should not be an afterthought. In fact, we should be an equal partner at the table envisioning the future of the church, and not just an audience whose perspectives are being asked after others have made plans and decisions that affect our mission work. This demands equity and respect.

Whatever happens after GC2020, I can assure you that the Philippines Central Conference will remain part of The United Methodist Church.

OUR JOINT POSITION AS A PHILIPPINE CENTRAL CONFERENCE
As a central conference of United Methodists in the Philippines, we are intensely opposed to any move that dissolves the United Methodist Church. We value the witness of the early church as shown in the book of Acts of the Apostles, wherein division and schism were avoided and unity in mission was their highest aspiration.

The PHILIPPINE CENTRAL CONFERENCE College of Bishops passed a UNITY STATEMENT dated last August 31, 2019. This statement strongly embraced Unity in Mission and also promotes our desired structural legacy that we can be proud of, namely:

1.    Locality or contextuality: that is why we have local churches, annual conferences and central conferences; being responsive to our missional context is obligatory.

2.    Connectionality in relationships; that is why there is a General Conference and a Council of Bishops; having a global identity and organic structure are necessary.

3.    Globality in inclusiveness; that is why the UMC reaches out in mutual relations with all governments and civil communities that promote Christian values and principles. Wesley said: “The world is my parish.”

It is clear to us in the Philippine Central Conference that a church empowered by God’s dynamic spirit and biblical wisdom requires that these structural legacies be maintained and promoted in any restructuring of the UMC. These principles are all opposed to the move to dissolve or splinter the UMC.

To support effective mission work across the connection, our Philippines Central Conference College of Bishops has recommended the following, and I quote:

1.    “The UMC is to be restructured into regional conferences, within which will remain central and jurisdictional conferences, annual conferences and local churches.

2.    “The UMC will remain as one global church in which regional, annual and local conferences are organic parts; but have the authority to decide their witness, mission and ministry, thus, preserving locality and connectionality.

3.    “The Council of Bishops shall be retained as both the living organic symbol of the globality of the UMC; and the mechanism for general and local oversight over all the UMC.

“These elements for restructuring the UMC will both preserve the organic integrity and identity of the UMC and make it free and responsive to the new world that is aborning.”

Parallel to this Resolution, the Rev. Jonathan Ulanday, a GC delegate from the Davao area, submitted a Petition dated September 18, 2019, entitled “Oppose Dissolution and Preserve the Unity of The United Methodist Church”. We believe keeping the UMC united against dissolution and schism is affirmed by the Preamble and Articles 4, 5, and 6 of The UMC Constitution.

This petition highlights the following principles that promote the unity and inclusiveness of the church described in the Preamble and Articles 4, 5, and 6 of The UMC Constitution:

1.    “Any form of structure and relationship that defines and treats one part of the church as a mere extension of another is colonial in nature and unjust.

2.    “Contextualization is a missional, structural, and connectional endeavor that is an expression of our historical unity and core heritage, church order, and discipline.

3.    “The diversity of our ministry and cultural contexts is real, but unity rooted in fulfilling the mission of the church can be maintained by identifying such differences and allowing for contextual authority to be exercised equitably by both central and jurisdictional conferences, or any regional structure formed by General Conference.”

This petition asks General Conference to:
1.    “Suspend all actions furthering any dissolution, disaffiliation, and separation plans in favor of preserving the unity of the church in compliance with our Constitution and the biblically founded values of unity, inclusiveness, and redemptive grace and mission in our Preamble, also the wisdom and practice of contextual central conference authority (Par. 31.5, Par. 31.6, and Par. 543).

2.    “Authorize the Connectional Table and the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters to jointly study and submit a report with proposals to the next General Conference session that preserves and strengthens the unity of the church in mission through a restructured polity that affirms and values broad contextual ministry policies and practices, including parity in contextual authority among existing central and jurisdictional conferences and/or any future regional bodies established by General Conference.”

THE CHRISTMAS COVENANT
As I close let me share a bit about the Christmas Covenant. Together with Rev. Dr. Betty Kazadi here and other central conference GC delegates and alternate delegates, I am a signatory to the Christmas Covenant. The Christmas Covenant is a vision coming from our central conferences that is guided by this frame, and I quote:

“As United Methodists from central conferences, we envision a Church that connects globally, engages in mission together, respects contextual ministry settings, celebrates the diversity of God’s creation in its many beautiful expressions, and values mutually empowering relationships in order to strengthen our core mission of evangelism, discipleship, and social witness for the transformation of the world. This is our covenant.”

The Christmas Covenant legislation will focus on establishing a regional conference structure for the future United Methodist Church. This legislation has been sent by the Philippines Annual Conference – Cavite to the General Conference. Possibly, it will be the only restructure proposal from central conferences. We are claiming our place at the table.

CONCLUSION
As we draw closer to General Conference this May, may we be one in prayer and strongly sustain our position to stand for UNITY IN MISSION, EVEN IF IT IS A RISK-TAKING MOVE. In any event, the Philippines Central Conference will seek to sustain ourselves and be part of The United Methodist Church.

"The Christmas Covenant and the Protocol complement each other"

The most significant piece of news in the UMC this week is undoubtedly the actions of the Philippines Annual Conference - Cavite, although many may have missed the significance. The PAC Cavite, meeting this week from the 12th through the 14th, passed two pieces of legislation on to the General Conference: the Protocol of Reconciliation & Grace Through Separation and the Christmas Covenant legislation. UMNS has this report about the conference's actions.

It is significant not only that PAC Cavite was the first annual conference to send the Protocol to General Conference, but that it sent the Protocol and the Christmas Covenant legislation together. The legislation for the Protocol has been critiqued in US social media for failing to include provisions for regionalization or the repeal of the Traditionalist Plan. That legislation focuses solely on the process of creating new denominations out of the UMC and asset division among them.

While the text for the Christmas Covenant legislation has not yet been released, the principles of the Christmas Covenant are clear, based on the Covenant document itself and comments made in a UMNS story about the document's release. That legislation is likely to include provisions for regionalization of the church in a way that will allow each region to make whatever adaptations necessary for the missional realities of that region, including those related to the qualifications for ordination and the services offered to all members of congregations.

Thus, the Christmas Covenant supplies the mechanisms for regionalization and adaptation of UMC policies by the US that the Protocol legislation is missing. As Bishop Rudy Juan said to UMNS, "I believe that the Christmas Covenant and the Protocol complement each other, and I am glad that both are endorsed by PAC Cavite."

But PAC Cavite has done something further by linking the Christmas Covenant and the Protocol. The Christmas Covenant includes a strong call for unity and an emphasis on the mission of the church. Thus, by linking the Christmas Covenant to the Protocol, the PAC Cavite has offered a way for those in the central conferences to vote for the Protocol while affirming the unity of the church. The Protocol alone might feel like voting for separation within the church, which the central conferences are opposed to. But voting for the Christmas Covenant with the Protocol is a way to affirm as much unity as possible in the church's present situation, while also taking actions to get the church out of some of the more intractable conflicts in which it finds itself.

For these reasons, along with the basic reason that the voices of United Methodists in the central conferences deserve to be heard, when the Christmas Covenant legislation is publicly released (probably in the near future), it deserves to be regarded as a serious and significant plan for the future of the UMC, on par with any other major plan.

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.