Recommended Readings: Filipino and European UMC Self-Descriptions

The Connectional Table has been sponsoring an initiative entitled "Imagining the Future." While the initiative is playing out differently in different branches of the church, essentially it is an attempt to promote regional discussions on the current context of the church and the hoped-for future of the church. As part of that initiative, regional leaders have published "Background and Contextual Information" statements for both the Philippines and Europe. These statements situate The United Methodist Church in these contexts in light of societal, political, and intra-church dynamics currently at play. If the UMC is ever to become a more successfully global denomination, honest sharing and receptive listening to such recounting of the situation of the church in various contexts will need to become a more regular practice. Therefore, these short reflections are highly recommended.

Recommended Viewing: Tuesdays at the Table

The Connectional Table has launched a new series of video interviews called "Tuesdays at the Table." The videos feature conversations with thought leaders from around the United Methodist connect. New videos premier weekly, and previous videos can be viewed online. The first several videos should be of particular interest to UM & Global readers.

The first episode included an interview by Rev. Kennetha Bigham-Tsai of Dr. David N. Field, Ecumenical Staff Officer for Faith & Order and Theological Dialogue for the Council of Bishops and occasional UM & Global contributor. Dr. Field spoke about mission, theology, and his life experiences in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Switzerland.

The second episode featured occasional UM & Global contributor Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj interviewing Rev. Dr. Kabamba Kiboko. The two spoke about Bible interpretation, with Rev. Dr. Kiboko drawing on her experiences as a Congolese woman serving a multicultural church in Ohio.

The third episode involved an interview by Rev. Dr. Dharmaraj of Dr. Filipe Maia. Dr. Maia, who was born in Brazil and currently teaches at Boston University, spoke about the role of reason in faith and the process of individually and communally putting faith and reason in dialogue.

Recommended Reading: US Regional Structure Proposal

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

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

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

This legislation is interesting for two reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended viewing: CTTalks on Worldwide Nature - Our Theology

As previously reported, the Connectional Table has been posting a series of videos on various topics in preparation for General Conference. The topic for the four videos posted in January is "Worldwide Nature - Our Theology." The videos, which can be accessed through the preceding link, are worth a watch, though they're unlikely to contain much surprising to those who have followed discussions about the global nature of the UMC.

The best aspect of the Connectional Table's focus on this topic may be in the discussion guide prepared to go with the video. The discussion guide has a very short list of questions for discussion, but two of the three really get at the heart of some of the challenges and opportunities involved in the UMC's rethinking itself as a global denomination. They are as follows:

1. How do we make our discussions of a worldwide church about more than just geography?

2. Discuss as a delegation what you feel we have to gain by living more fully into a worldwide connection. What do you fear we have to lose in this endeavor?

Recommended interaction: #CTTalks

If you've not already seen them, the UMC's Connectional Table has been releasing a series of videos about important topics in the UMC as part of the run-up to General Conference 2016. You can do two things regarding these videos as a United Methodist interested in global questions about the church:

1. Tweet now your questions related to January and February's topics: Worldwide Nature - Our Theology and Worldwide Nature - Our Organization/Structure. Include the hashtag #CTTalks so that the Connectional Table can find your tweets. You can also tag the Connectional Table by including @CTUMC in your post.

2. Watch the videos as they come out. Videos from October (General Conference Culture), October (Christian Conferencing), and December (Vital Congregations) are already available.

A more global Connectional Table?

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.

At its recent meeting, the Connectional Table (CT) submitted legislation to General Conference to restructure itself to achieve greater representation on the CT from United Methodists from outside the United States. Currently, seven out of the 47 members are from outside the US, a far smaller percentage than the number of United Methodists from outside the US.

Thomas Kemper has posted a concept paper laying out one model for a way in which the CT could be revised to be more globally representative. I do not know how similar the CT's own plan is, but Kemper's proposal is worth reading for the sake of discussion.

While the CT's proposal on global representation was overshadowed by the news of another CT proposal to General Conference on homosexuality, the proposed restructuring is, arguably, more significant for the future of the denomination. Although some American United Methodists have threatened schism over the issue of homosexuality, polls show that it is a vocal minority at either end of the American United Methodist spectrum that is interested in such a schism. Better representation of Africans, Filipinos, and Europeans and conversations about what it means for the denomination to be a international body probably affect more United Methodists.

The issue of global representation in the denomination, whether through the CT or other means, takes on even greater significance given another recent proposal to GC2016. The General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA) has submitted legislation that would allow it to, for the first time, set apportionment giving goals for Annual Conferences outside of the United States. This would significantly increase the amount of money collected from Africa and the Philippines that goes toward support of bishops' salaries and the operation of general agencies. (The proposal does not increase the amount collected from Europe and actually provides for a reduction, though European church leaders have said they intend to increase their giving instead.) If the denomination is expecting more in terms of financial contributions from its members around the world, it is only fair to give increased voice to members around the world.

Economist Don House recently made dire predictions about the collapse of the denomination's structures because of inability of Americans to continue to pay for those structures given projected continued decreases in American membership in the UMC. He calls for turn-around plans in the US. The UMC should certainly continue to evangelize and develop members in the US, but a shift toward more global funding and decision-making also means that the future of the denomination would not rest so firmly on American funding.  Thus, greater funding from and representation of United Methodists from outside the US may be a necessity from an institutional standpoint. It is also an opportunity for the denomination to continue to open itself to the moving of the Spirit.

Of course, to allow this to happen, American United Methodists must be willing to relinquish some of their control over the denomination, its money, its programs, and its foci for discussion. That will certainly not be an easy process for a group that has long dominated the institution. Nevertheless, we pray that through the leading of the Spirit, American United Methodists may model the humility necessary to open themselves up to new work of the Spirit, whether that is through a revised CT, a new model of apportionments, and/or other changes to our global structure.

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.