News Roundup - June 1, 2023

Below is a run-down of significant (United) Methodist stories from the past month.

Council of Bishops Recommended 2026 General Conference: At their May meeting, the Council of Bishops recommended the UMC hold a five-day General Conference in 2026. That session would count as a regular General Conference and also be focused on making significant changes to the denomination: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/bishops-call-for-general-conference-in-2026.

Much Lower UMC Budget Proposed: GCFA and the Connectional Table agreed to send a much lower denominational budget proposal to General Conference: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/as-church-exits-rise-proposed-budget-drops.

United Methodist Africa Forum Organizes: The United Methodist Africa Forum held its first meeting in Johannesburg in April, where it organized itself, elected leaders, and adopted policy positions, including support for greater regionalization in the church: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/new-caucus-supports-african-bishops-regionalization.

Global Ministries and East Africa Episcopal Area Announce End to Embargo: Global Ministries and the East Africa Episcopal Area announced the end to a decade-long embargo of funds from Global Ministries to East Africa. The embargo arose out of disputes over audit issues, which have been resolved: https://umcmission.org/may-2023/joint-announcement-the-general-board-of-global-ministries-and-east-africa-episcopal-area-restore-relationship/.

UMC Council of Bishops Meets: The United Methodist Council of Bishops met for its first in-person meeting since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The council sought to set a forward-looking tone amid church conflict and disaffiliations: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/amid-rupture-bishops-called-to-renew-church.

Connectional Table Reconsiders Restructuring: The Connectional Table voted at an April 27^th meeting to reconsider an earlier proposal for restructuring itself and reducing the number of members of the body: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/leadership-body-reconsiders-restructuring-plan.

Global Ministries Africa Consultation Promotes Mission Partnership: Global Ministries’ African Mission Partners Consultation, held in April, brought together African UMC leaders and Global Ministries board members and staff to strengthen mission partnerships in Africa: https://umcmission.org/may-2023/consultation-charts-way-for-missional-church/ and https://umcmission.org/may-2023/partnership-in-mission-with-mutual-respect-and-accountability/.

BMCR Forges Connections with Africa: Black Methodists for Church Renewal, the Black caucus in the US UMC, worked to develop closer ties with Africa during its annual meeting, inviting Dr. Peter Mageto of Africa University to address the group: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/black-caucus-draws-closer-to-african-partners.

Irish Methodists and Polish United Methodists Continue Partnership: Polish United Methodist leaders visited Ireland to continue a partnership with the Methodist church there: https://irishmethodist.org/world-mission-news/visit-from-world-church-family.

North African United Methodists Affirm Connection: United Methodist pastors and a church leader from UMC congregations in Algeria and Tunisia met with UMC Bishops Patrick Streiff and Stefan Zürcher to reaffirm the role of those congregations in the future of the church: https://www.umc-cse.org/en/liste_552612-1028104/when-uncertainty-gives-way-to-new-courage-of-faith.html.

Korean-American UMCs Support Mongolia Amid Divisions: The Mongolia Mission held a recent summit for its Korean-American supporters. Despite the decision of some supporting churches to disaffiliate, the event stressed unity in mission: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/korean-churches-hope-to-continue-shared-mission-work-in-mongolia.

Czech United Methodists Vote to Become Autonomous: At the annual conference of the Czech UMC, participants voted to leave the denomination to become autonomous. They will follow the autonomy process laid out in the Book of Discipline, which requires General Conference approval: https://www.umc-cse.org/en/liste_552612-1030316/setting-the-course-in-czechia.html.

United Methodists Prepare for Changes to Migrant Ministries in the United States: After the end of the Title 42 migrant regulations, United Methodists involved in ministry with migrants have been preparing for possible increases or changes to the flow of migrants to the United States: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/amid-policy-changes-church-keeps-faith-with-migrants.

Chilean Methodists Support Migrants: With help from Connexio develop, the Swiss United Methodist development agency, Chilean Methodists have been working to support migrants to Chile: https://connexio.ch/index.php/2023/05/17/als-kirche-fuer-migrantinnen-da-srf-1-zeigt-reportage-aus-chile/.

Global Ministries Celebrates Historic Ministry of Asian and Pacific Islander Immigrants: In recognition of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, Global Ministries has been shared stories of Asian and Pacific Islander immigrants who have contributed to United Methodist mission: https://umcmission.org/asian-american-and-pacific-islander-contributions-within-methodist-mission/.

Philippines UMC Promotes Conversations about Religion, Race, Gender, and Ability: The National United Methodist Youth Fellowship in the Philippines, the Philippines Board of Women's Work, and the General Commission on Religion and Race are launching an initiative called #CloseTheGap to promote conversations about religion, race, gender, and (dis)ability: https://www.gcorr.org/news/closethegap-initiative-launches-in-the-philippines.

Yambasu Agricultural Initiative Reinvests in Second Season: The various projects across Africa associated with Global Ministries’ Yambasu Agricultural Initiative are planning to reinvest profits from their first growing season into a second season: https://umcmission.org/may-2023/reinvestment-in-yambasu-initiative-projects-leads-to-growth/.

UMC Ministers to the HIV-Positive in Congo: The United Methodist Church in the Kivu Annual Conference, with support from Global Ministries, is supporting women living with HIV/AIDS as part of the Maternal and Child Health Program: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/church-gives-hope-to-people-living-with-hiv-in-congo.

United Methodists in Zimbabwe Combat Drug Abuse: At UMC-run high schools in Zimbabwe, church and school leaders have worked together to discourage drug abuse by students: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/united-methodists-join-fight-against-drug-abuse.

East Congo UMC and UMCOR Respond to Flooding: The Disaster Management Office of the East Congo Episcopal Area and UMCOR have begun responding to significant flooding in South Kivu, which killed several people: https://umcmission.org/may-2023/united-methodists-killed-in-congo-flooding/.

UMNS Supports Press Freedom: In an editorial published on World Press Freedom Day, May 3, Tim Tanton, Director of United Methodist News, explained what press freedom means to the church and why the church should support it: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/why-church-should-care-about-press-freedom.

Recommended Viewing: David W. Scott on Colonialism and the Church

Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology for Global Ministries and blogmaster of UM & Global, was invited to present to the Council of Bishops last week on the topic of colonialism and the church as part of the council's on-going Task Force to End Racism, led by Bishop LaTrelle Easterling.

In his presentation, Scott offered some remarks about the definition of colonialism, briefly reviewed three ways in which The United Methodist Church and its predecessor denominations have historically been entangled with colonialism -- settler colonialism in North America, European and especially British imperialism around the world, and American expansion around the world in its various forms, looked at how that history continues to impact the church today, and then offered some thoughts on how the church should address that legacy. Scott's presentation also included some question and answer interactions with the bishops.

Scott's presentation can be viewed on the Council of Bishops Facebook page as part of the livestream of that session. It begins at the beginning of the livestream and lasts approximately 50 minutes.

Recommended Reading: UK response to UMC bishops' letter to global LGBTQ community

On December 28, The United Methodist Church's Council of Bishops issued a "letter to the global LGBTQ community." The letter, intended as a pastoral statement, lamented demeaning and dehumanizing treatment of members of the LGBTQ community.

The letter received varying responses from United Methodists - some positive, some critical. It is interesting to see, though, that the letter has provoked response by Methodists beyond the UMC. Dignity and Worth, a group LGBTQ Methodists and allies in the Methodist Church in Britain, has issued an appreciative response to the bishops' letter.

Dignity and Worth's letter is a reminder that not only do debates within The United Methodist Church affect United Methodists around the world, Methodists (and non-Methodists) from other denominations around the world are also listening in as the UMC tries to discern its way forward.

Recommended Reading: Methodist bishops' statements on migration

In light of recent debate about caravans of migrants from Central America traveling through Mexico to the United States, episcopal leaders from several Methodist denominations have issued statements affirming the importance of treating migrants with empathy and dignity and recognizing their full legal rights.

The Methodist Church of Mexico issued a statement on October 20 signed by all six of their bishops. You can find that statement in English and Spanish versions.

The United Methodist Council of Bishops issued a statement on November 7, which was co-signed by the Mexican bishops, the President of the Methodist Church of El Salvador, and the supervising bishop for the United Methodist mission in Honduras.

Recommended Readings on UMC constitutional amendments

On Monday, the Council of Bishops announced the results of voting on five constitutional amendments approved by General Conference 2016. See also the UMNS story on the results.

Three amendments - two regarding elections of conference delegates and bishops and one affirming the Council of Bishop's right to exercise oversight over its members - passed.

Two other amendments, both related to gender, failed. The first asserted the equal value of women and men in the eyes of God. The second added “gender,” “ability,” “age,” and “marital status” to an paragraph prohibiting discrimination in church membership.

66.5% of annual conference delegates around the world voted to ratify the first amendment, just 68 votes shy of the 2/3rds majority required for ratification. It had received 93% approval at General Conference 2016. 61.3% of annual conference delegates around the world voted to ratify the second amendment. It was 2,529 votes shy of ratification. It had received 67.8% approval at General Conference 2016. Over 60,000 votes were cast in the ratification process.

The failure of these two amendments prompted the Council of Bishops to issue a statement expressing "dismay" at the results, affirming the equality of women, and confessing ongoing sexism in the church. The female bishops of the church issued a separate pastoral letter expressing "lament" over the results. The full text of the two amendments is in that pastoral letter.

Vote totals by annual conference make clear that the two amendments failed because of overwhelming opposition in some African episcopal areas and in the Eurasian Episcopal Area (Russia, Ukraine, and Moldova). Some African episcopal areas voting overwhelming to ratify the amendments; others voted overwhelmingly to oppose them. Cote d'Ivoire, one of the largest episcopal areas in the denomination, did not vote on any of the amendments.

Vote totals from Africa and the Philippines evidence a much more consensual approach to voting than in the West, a pattern that holds beyond just this one vote. There is no clear account of the balance between episcopal pressure and other social factors for producing such consensus. Jerry Kulah expressed a rationale for opposition to the amendments in Liberia, but it is not clear whether the same rationale was influential elsewhere. When African voters did go against the consensus of their annual conferences, they were most likely to do so to affirm the equality of women and men.

The vote broke down by region is below (Yes = yes to ratification; No = no to ratification):

The Philippines
Amendment I: 89% Yes; 11% No
Amendment II: 82% Yes; 18% No

North Central Jurisdiction, USA
Amendment I: 73% Yes; 27% No
Amendment II: 72% Yes; 28% No

Northeast Jurisdiction, USA
Amendment I: 82% Yes; 18% No
Amendment II: 77% Yes; 23% No

Southcentral Jurisdiction, USA
Amendment I: 72% Yes; 28% No
Amendment II: 68% Yes; 32% No

Southeastern Jurisdiction, USA
Amendment I: 67% Yes; 33% No
Amendment II: 60% Yes; 40% No

Western Jurisdiction, USA
Amendment I: 95% Yes; 5% No
Amendment II: 76% Yes; 24% No

Europe excluding Eurasia Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 81% Yes; 19% No
Amendment II: 78% Yes; 22% No

Eurasia Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 10% Yes; 90% No
Amendment II: 35% Yes; 65% No

Eastern Angola Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 78% Yes; 22% No
Amendment II: 88% Yes; 12% No

Western Angola Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 84% Yes; 16% No
Amendment II: 89% Yes; 11% No

East Africa Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 34% Yes; 66% No
Amendment II: 16% Yes; 84% No

Mozambique Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 100% Yes
Amendment II: 100% Yes

Zimbabwe Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 25% Yes; 75% No
Amendment II: 100% No

Cote d'Ivoire Episcopal Area
Did not report results

Liberia Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 100% No
Amendment II: 100% No

Nigeria Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 100% No
Amendment II: 100% No

Sierra Leone Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 100% No
Amendment II: 100% No

Central Congo Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 15% Yes; 85% No
Amendment II: 1% Yes; 99% No

East Congo Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 98% Yes; 2% No
Amendment II: 99% Yes; 1% No

North Katanga Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 100% No
Amendment II: 100% No

South Congo Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 11% Yes; 89% No
Amendment II: 6% Yes; 94% No

Recommended Readings: Bishops on A Way Forward

The United Methodist Church's Council of Bishops met last week to, among other things, act on the recommendations of the Commission on a Way Forward regarding proposals for a special called General Conference in February of 2019. This special called General Conference is intended to address the denomination's long-standing division over homosexuality, especially the practices of ordination of LGBTQ+ persons and gay church marriages.

The bishops made a recommendation, which is available in full here. A UMNS news article summarizes that recommendation.

There are three main takeaways:

1. The Council of Bishops has endorsed the One Church Plan, which would remove the restrictive language around homosexuality and make ordination and marriage matters of local and/or regional choice.

2. In their report to General Conference, the Council of Bishops will also include some description of the other two models considered: a Traditionalist Plan than focuses on stronger accountability to current standards on homosexuality and a Connectional Conference Plan that sort the denomination into three separate groups in the US based on views of homosexuality. There is some confusion whether the bishops intended to present these other two plans as legislation for consideration by General Conference or as appendixes to illustrate a historical narrative for how they reached their recommendation.

3. The bishops are not in agreement on which plan is the best. A majority of active bishops has endorsed the One Church Plan, but there is some level of support for each of the other two plans. Two bishops ([1] and [2]) referred to this support as "significant," but it is unclear what the exact level of support for each plan is, and the Council of Bishops has decided not to release vote totals.

More details about the bishops' recommendations will be forthcoming, with a full report issued by the deadline of July 8, and perhaps as soon as mid-June.

The Judicial Council will also be meeting May 22-25 to consider constitutional questions related to the special General Conference and the various proposals.

Why the UMC is not the SBC

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.

Most watchers of United Methodist news have been eagerly/anxiously awaiting this week the forthcoming announcement by the Council of Bishops on what proposal they will put forward to the special called General Conference in 2019. This proposal, which will presumably be based on the work of the Commission On a Way Forward, is intended to resolve the denomination's decades-long battle over homosexuality, specifically the ordination and church marriage of LGBTQ+ individuals.

Whatever proposal the Council of Bishops put forward, it is unlikely to satisfy the demands of traditionalists in the denomination, who have stated they will accept nothing other than continued adherence to and full enforcement of the denomination's current position prohibiting gay ordination and gay marriage. Leaders of conservative leaders have indicated their intention to put forward their own legislation to accomplish this goal. This legislation could be introduced on the floor, even if the Judicial Council rules that it could not be submitted beforehand.

With these developments, many have wondered whether The United Methodist Church is in line for a Southern Baptist-style conservative takeover. For those unfamiliar, back in the 1980s, the most conservative/fundamentalist elements of the Southern Baptist Convention waged a campaign to gain control of the denomination, marginalizing the moderate wing that had previously been in power.

To assess such a possibility, I've been reading this week Nancy Ammerman's book about this process, Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention. It's an even-handed, sociological account of this story. The book is well-written and insightful.

Much of what the book describes rings true to the situation of United Methodism. Conservatives who felt excluded from moderate-dominated denominational institutions seeking to assert their voices. Tightly drawn battle lines over issues, including who should be ordained. A very engaged and politically mobilized group on either end of the spectrum with a larger group in the middle open to persuasion but more invested in the status quo. Increasingly contentious and politicized denominational meetings. A specially designated group created to keep the peace.

Of course, there are important differences, too. 2019 will not be the same moment culturally for the US that 1979 or 1989 was, and the UMC has a substantial non-American constituency, which was not true of the SBC. These differences matter, but the parallels are nonetheless worth noting.

The biggest differences that emerged for me, though, were the nature of what was being fought over and the significance of regionalism in shaping the battle. In the following description, I am not trying to imply that either side in the UMC is theologically right or should prevail. Instead, I am merely trying to describe what I see as the differences between the SBC fight and the UMC fight.

First is the difference of the prize for which people were/are fighting. Southern Baptists were fighting for control of the denominational institutions - an executive committee, 4 boards, 9 commissions, and 6 seminaries. Neither side was seeking to substantially alter any of these institutions, just to be the ones in charge of setting the policy and choosing the personnel for them. To gain this control, Southern Baptist fundamentalists needed to elect fundamentalist convention presidents who would appoint fundamentalist committee members who would choose fundamentalist trustees for these institutions. Thus, in a very direct way, control of the presidency = control of the institutions. Despite being ostensibly congregationalist in their polity, Southern Baptists actually have very centralized denominational authority structures. This was a fight about gaining the reins of that legitimized central authority.

United Methodists, on the other hand, are fighting to set policy that is supposed to determine the behaviors of dozens of annual conferences and their Boards of Ordained Ministry and tens of thousands of elders and licensed local pastors. As United Methodists have already learned on the issue of sexuality, official denominational policy does not translate directly into specific behaviors by annual conferences and pastors, especially when there is substantial regional disagreement with such policies. United Methodists have substantial local and regional ability to resist denominational policy.

This observation brings me to my second point - regionalism. The conflict among Southern Baptists was correlated with life experiences (education, moving to the city or to the suburbs), but it was not well correlated with regional differences. There were slight differences between the Southeastern seaboard (GA, SC, NC, VA, and MD) and the old frontier Southeast (AL, MS, TN), but the conflict existed throughout all regions and was centered on institutions (the Convention meetings and the denominational bureaucracy) shared by all regions.

The United Methodist Church's conflict is highly regional in nature. While variation within regions exists, theological views differ most widely between regions, best dramatized in the US by the Western Jurisdiction and the Southeast Jurisdiction (to say nothing of United Methodism globally). Moreover, the conflict is not just about what denomination-wide policy should be, but about how that policy should be upheld and carried out by regional bodies. Actors at the regional level have additional sets of considerations beyond ideology in how they approach this conflict - they must also consider careers, relationships, impacts on local ministry, etc.

Herein lies the crux of the problem for United Methodist traditionalists. United Methodism, both inside the US and world-wide, has regional power deeply ingrained in its structures. The annual conference has been in many ways the basic unit of Methodism since its beginnings. Jurisdictions have exercised significant powers since their creation in 1939. It is clear by now that traditionalists have sufficient votes to control the policies set by General Conference, but it is equally clear that there are currently no adequate mechanisms for enforcing these policies throughout the connection.

Thus, whereas fundamentalist Southern Baptists were trying to take over the SBC structure as it stood, which could be done by focusing on its centralized power structure, United Methodist traditionalists face a much harder task. They must create new means of enforcement that go against deeply entrenched structures of United Methodist regionalism and allow traditionalists to exert authority in regions other than their own, even when local authorities are opposed to or ambivalent about traditionalist agendas.

It's quite possible that United Methodist traditionalists could pass legislation that would give them greater tools to exert more authorized authority and force across jurisdictional and annual conference lines. Such legislation would, however, require substantial innovations to United Methodist polity. As the bishops have been wrestling with this week, it's always harder to make structural changes that it is to make changes within the existing system. Yet it is still possible traditionalists could succeed in doing so.

It's also clear, however, that progressives, should they want to, would have means to resist this force. Despite traditionalist calls for progressives to take a "gracious exit" from the denomination, progressives have shown no impetus towards leaving and creating their own denomination. It's possible some would reconsider and move in that direction after a sufficiently demoralizing defeat at the special General Conference. But if others wanted to continue their current program of resistance within - raising legal objections through Judicial Council and possibly secular courts, following the letter and not the spirit of requirements, slow-walking the implementation of new polices, etc. - that would be a successful short-term strategy.

If progressives decided to mount such resistance, even in the face of new authority by traditionalists, traditionalists might still eventually be successful in their campaign to drive progressives out from the denomination. Yet it might take another five, ten, or even more years to do so. Even with their clear focus, it took fundamentalist Baptists a decade to solidify their wins. Moreover, such an eventual traditionalist United Methodist victory would involve a significant amount of continued and perhaps intensified fighting in the meantime.

There are many possible outcomes to the called General Conference in February of 2019. Yet it is quite possible that, while this special General Conference is supposed to resolve the debate over homosexuality, it will only shift that fight into other forms. United Methodists may well be still fighting over sexuality and related polity at General Conference 2024 and 2028 and perhaps beyond.

55 Futures for the UMC

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

The Council of Bishops has released their initial comments on the midterm report of the Commission on a Way Forward. They have indicated that they are considering three options for the future of The United Methodist Church in the face of its long-standing and increasingly divisive debate over homosexuality and the roles of LGBTQ+ people in the church.

Two of the three options seem fairly clear at this point, but the third option could entail a variety of distinct scenarios. This post will present three such scenarios. Taking each of these different scenarios as a distinct proposal, that leads to five possible proposals from the Commission and the Council of Bishops.

As I will then detail, each of these five proposals could then meet with six possible responses from the called General Conference in 2019, all but one of which would presumably need to be voted on by the annual conferences, which could ratify or reject the special General Conference’s action.

That gives at least 55 options still on the table for the future of the denomination (5*5*2 + 5*1). It’s a large number, and the ultimate outcome may not be evident until sometime in 2020.

The first option the Council of Bishops indicated is “a model [that] affirms the current Book of Discipline language and places a high value on accountability.” Presumably this means harsher penalties for those who disobey existing provisions against ordaining LGBTQ+ persons or performing gay marriages, which would lead to a purging of progressives from the denomination.

The second option mentioned is “a model [that] removes restrictive language and places a high value on contextualization. This sketch also specifically protects the rights of those whose conscience will not allow them to perform same gender weddings or ordain LGBTQ persons.” This seems to be the much-discussed “local option,” which would leave decisions about ordination to annual conferences and gay marriages to individual pastors and churches.

The third option is “a model [that] is grounded in a unified core that includes shared doctrine and services and one COB, while also creating different branches that have clearly defined values such as accountability, contextualization and justice.” It is not clear what exactly, this option would entail, but I can anticipate at least three possibilities:

1. A split into confederated churches – The United Methodist Church would split into two or more denominations with different stances on homosexuality. The two (or more) denominations would enter into an ecumenical agreement to mutually recognize members and, when they meet requirements, ministers. The two denominations would also continue to support joint ministries through shared boards and agencies and collaborative committees. The degree of collaboration and cooperation is a big question in this option. Another big question is whether the split would apply to any branches of The United Methodist Church outside the US.

2. US geographic central conferences – The five US jurisdictions (or some other configuration of geographic areas) become central conferences. Central conferences have the power to adapt portions of the Book of Discipline. Sexuality is placed in that portion to allow some parts of the church to maintain a traditional stance, others to adopt an affirming stance, and perhaps others to choose a local option. Presumably central conferences outside the US would have this option, too, though other than possibly parts of Europe, it seems unlikely any would.

3. US theological central conferences – The US is divided into central conferences, as above, but rather than rely on geography as a proxy for theology, the central conferences are explicitly based on theological convictions over sexuality.

Of these three, the first seems most likely, but the latter two may still be possibilities.

The bishops also indicated that whichever proposal they put forward will include a “gracious way of exit for those who feel called to exit from the denomination.” This pressure-valve release, if you will, allows a strongly dissenting minority to leave the denomination, presumably through relaxation of the trust clause, thus allowing congregations to take their church property with them.

Whichever of these five (two clearly indicated and three possible) proposals the Commission on a Way Forward and Council of Bishops ultimately recommend; General Conference will then need to vote on the recommendation. Again, there are several different possibilities for what the General Conference will do.

1. General Conference approves proposal – This is the most straight-forward scenario, though not necessarily what will happen.

2. General Conference significantly alters proposal – The bishops put forward a proposal, but General Conference delegates are not completely happy with it. They significantly alter the details of the proposal (especially possible if it’s one of the confederated church or US central conference proposals).

3. General Conference rejects proposal, approves alternative model indicated by bishops – Instead of merely changing the bishops’ recommendation, the General Conference may reject it in favor of a completely different proposal, substituting one of the other three models mentioned by the Council of Bishops.

4. General Conference rejects proposal, approves completely different plan – Instead of substituting one of the other three models mentioned by the Council of Bishops, General Conference could approve a completely different option not considered by the bishops, up to and including a full division of the denomination into two or more unconnected successors.

5. General Conference rejects proposal, implements only pressure value release – The General Conference could decide to keep the system as it is, yet seek to rid itself of those most discontented with the current system. Accommodations could be made for those on either side of the debate who wish to leave the denomination to do so.

6. General Conference rejects proposal, takes no alternative action – Varying interest groups, based either on theology or geography could oppose the plan put forward by the bishops. The plan could fail to garner sufficient votes to pass. However, because of the divided nature of the church, no other plan may win sufficient votes to pass, especially if it requires constitutional amendment. The called General Conference would end without any action being taken.

The first five of these possible General Conference actions would presumably involve changes to the UMC’s constitution. If so, such changes would need to be ratified by the annual conferences. Annual conferences, then, would vote on any General Conference-approved plan and could either ratify or reject it. It is certainly possible that even if a plan is approved by General Conference, opposition to it could build afterward, leading annual conferences to reject it. This may be especially likely if General Conference approves something other than what the bishops recommend.

It is unclear whether such annual conference ratification on a plan approved by General Conference in February of 2019 could begin with the American annual conference season in June 2019. Such a time-table would allow all annual conferences around the world to vote before the 2020 regular General Conference. (Some European annual conferences meeting in spring 2020 would be the last to vote.) General Conference 2020 could then take further action to implement the decisions of the prior year, if ratified. It is also possible ratification voting may not begin until fall 2019, with the final votes coming at American annual conferences in June 2020, after the May 2020 regular General Conference, though that seems ill-timed.

The last possible General Conference action, taking no action, would of course not require ratification by the annual conference. If this happened, it is not clear where the denomination would go from there. It is likely that, General Conference having failed to address the denomination’s impasse on sexuality, individual annual conferences and caucus groups like the WCA would implement their own plans for the future of their particular constituencies. Such plans are likely to be conflicting.

While it is unclear which of these 55 roads the church will go down, what is clear is that we are still several years away from knowing the ultimate fate of The United Methodist Church.

Creation Care Updates

Christians are once again in the midst of the Season of Creation, a month-long focus by Christians from many traditions around the world on the Church's role in caring for God's creation. In light of this month's focus, here is a rundown of some creation care news from The United Methodist Church in the past several months.

A UMNS story, bishops' statement, and UMW response on/to US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords at the beginning of June

Wespath's announcement of its recognition by Responsible Investor for its sustainable investment reporting in June

Global Ministries' announcement of its hiring of Jenny Phillips as its new creation care staff, starting in July

A UMW story on their advocacy related to methane emission regulations in July

A UMNS story from early July about UMC responses to global climate issues

A United Methodist commentary on desert encroachment in Nigeria from early July

An UMCOR report of United Methodist Earthkeepers training in August

Recommended reading: Bishops plan for called General Conference in 2019

The Council of Bishops made plans to call a special General Conference in February or March of 2019, as described in this UMNS article released yesterday. The actual call will not be issued until a location, dates, and exact wording of the call have been determined.

While the specifics of the special General Conference have not yet been developed, it will take up matters related to the Commission on a Way Forward. This blog has covered the development of that commission in previous posts. The timing of the General Conference would allow the Commission, whose membership was recently announced, until approximately June 2018 to complete their work.

It is also worth noting that delegates to the called General Conference will be either the same delegates as GC2016, their regularly appointed alternates, or, if an annual conference so chooses, a newly elected slate of delegates. One development to watch is whether annual conferences do choose to elect new delegates.

Along with the announcement came a video inviting United Methodists to pray and fast for their church. A corresponding website (umcprays.org) is designed to assist church members in that process. The bishops emphasized the importance of prayer in moving forward as a denomination.

Jacob Dharmaraj: An Office of Christian Unity & Interreligious Relationships or a Research Institute?

Today's piece is written by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj, President of the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists.

It is encouraging to know that the Council of Bishops (COB) is in the process of moving the Office of Christian Unity and Interreligious Relationships (OCUIR) to Washington D.C., and hiring six new staff. COB’s tacit acknowledgment that the old model was procrustean and needed restructuring is indeed admirable. Unquestionably, our denomination needs clarity in our understanding of Christology, missiology, and ecclesiology in the context of interfaith or multi-faith relations, which COB strives to address. Just like great apps such as “WhatsApp” or “Yelp” and others enhance our daily social interactions with our peers, a great missional and theological app can enhance, inspire, and illuminate our ministry of witness.

Since the emerging new world is remarkably similar to the Greco-Roman pluralistic domain, it offers new challenges every day in our collective struggle to witness our faith in Jesus Christ. With the ostensible questioning of traditional religions by modern scientific, philological, and archaeological discoveries, and by application of various theoretical apparatuses such as deconstructionism, phenomenalism, etc., the foundational beliefs of Christianity have been challenged to the core. Christianity’s relationship with people of other faiths and the Body of Christ has to be clearly defined in today’s context. We sincerely hope the creation of this office will lead us to the next higher level.

Nonetheless, I had a question while I was reading on-line the purpose of the office and the responsibilities of the staff. The program responsibility of this office in Washington D.C., at least theoretically, comes close to the very purpose of the mission board. Let me clarify.

Anyone who is committed to Christian mission will undeniably agree that mission and evangelism are two sides of the same coin. Mission lays out the road map and evangelism connects all of us with the Author and Creator of all. I believe that the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) has got the expertise, experience, and potential resources in working with ecumenical groups and interfaith communities. By theoretical definition of mission, the functional role and responsibilities of this office come close to the mandate of Global Ministries. If we house the Office of Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns under Global Ministries, our denomination will reduce the replication of our missional tasks.

Mission Conferences Speak
Let me submit one historic reference. The global ecumenical mission conference held in Jerusalem 1928 was dominated by the debate between Hendrick Kraemer and William Hocking about ministry with people of other living faiths. This debate spilled over to the ecumenical Conference held in Tambaram, India in 1938 in which Karl Barth, E. Stanley Jones, and others continued the conversation. These and all the subsequent ecumenical mission conferences held in the 20th century discussed and deliberated the church’s interaction with people of other faiths under the umbrella of mission and evangelism, but never as an isolated task.  This office in Washington D.C., can be justified to function apart from Global Ministries only, I submit, only if it were to be established to function as a Think Tank.

Research Institute Model
As a Think Tank and under the governance of the bishops, this office would be able to produce quality resources which will equip our constituents to know what they believe and why they believe. It will help us overcome the sophomoric spasm of multiculturalism and ecumenism, and nurture an informed religious community that is equipped to rethink in knowledgeable ways. Most importantly, this office would help all of us focus on the challenges we face as a denomination rather than the progress we have made; it will take us from the present-day corrosive culture of consultancy to the primary goal of finding answers. Lastly, it will be multi-disciplinary, and where appropriate, it will be multi-theological.

On the other hand, if it were to function as a program office, it will look for answers outside the problem and will continue to impose externally formulated ripostes. The Think Tank model will also help us come to grip with the problems we face, identify the questions and assumptions we have, and most importantly enrich us to articulate theology from the core of our Christian convictions.

If we want people to join the United Methodist movement in the transformation of the world, we need to be intentional about developing intellectual leadership and put together a team that would better communicate what we are and who we are. It is not just enough to minister with the poor and marginalized. We must develop and cultivate scholars and intellectuals who can minister to the movers and shakers of our society which include the intellectuals and affluent from all religious backgrounds.

As COB strives to re-ignite the engine of the denomination’s mission with people of other living faiths and create a public theology, and as it is committed to move past education for maintenance to education for mission, we request the leadership not overlook the rich resources readily available within the diasporic community among us. They will be an asset and strength in our missional engagement, as they know many languages, several cultures, and various sacred scriptures of major world religions. Our sacred history itself corroborates the necessity of engaging the diasporic faith community as our society becomes multi-contextual and pluralistic. For example, the Septuagint, commonly known as LXX or the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, was translated from Hebrew to Greek for the scattered Hellenistic Jews. They recruited and engaged seventy scholars from the diasporic community. Can our beloved United Methodist Church and COB have such a grand vision for our larger society and tap the untapped rich resources that are readily available among us?

In the final analysis, the unanswered question is this: Is the Office of the Christian Unity and Interreligious Relationships envisioned as a programmatic office or a research institute? The answer determines where it should be housed: GBGM or the COB.

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!

Recommended readings: Bishops at GC2016

While the story of the UMC's General Conference 2016 is being told as a story about debates over sexuality (which it is), looked at another way, this General Conference has been all about bishops and their role in leading the church, as the following recommended readings indicate.

The bishops have been at the center of the drama of the debate over sexuality. After rumors surfaced of a possible denominational schism, they issued a call for unity Tuesday morning, though they recognized that they were not of one mind themselves. The conference responded by calling on the Council of Bishops to present a plan for moving forward in light of intractable disagreements over sexuality. The bishops answered by recommending the formation of a study committee, tabling all sexuality-related legislation for this General Conference, and possibly calling a special General Conference to discuss the committee's recommendations. After contentious debate, General Conference narrowly approved the bishops' plan.

While this drama has taken up most of the attention, it has not been the only episcopal development at this General Conference. Also related primarily to the issue of sexuality, but occurring before the events described above, the Council of Bishops affirmed "A Covenant of Accountability."

This General Conference has seen debate over episcopal term limits as well, which were ultimately voted down.

Moreover, General Conference approved five new bishops for Africa, all starting in 2020, deciding against an amendment to add two immediately.

Bishops have also been trying to lead the conference and the denomination in prayer.

While much has been and will be written in the coming days about what this week's decisions mean for the denomination's stance on sexuality, the denomination would also do well to reflect on what this conference's events mean for our ecclesiology of the episcopacy, and how our historical ecclesiological understandings of the episcopacy can help us think through how to continue to faithfully work together to build the future of The United Methodist Church.

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.

The global appeal of holy conferencing

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.

The Council of Bishops is currently meeting in Oklahoma City, OK.  As part of that meeting, they heard a presentation yesterday by Candler School of Theology Assistant Professor of Wesleyan & Methodist Studies Kevin M. Watson on Christian Conferencing.  United Methodist News Service live-tweeted the presentation.  Reactions from the bishops that UMNS captured included positive responses by Bishop Christian Alsted of the Nordic and Baltic Episcopal Area and David Yemba of the Congo Central Conference.  According to the UMNS Twitter feed, "Bp. Alsted asks how can we live into Christian Conferencing at #UMCGC in 2016," and "Bp. Yemba: Christian Conferencing is our heritage that we need to reclaim. Don't wait until #UMCGC in 2016."

As an American, I am exciting to see the main interest in the concept of Christian Conferencing at the Council of Bishops coming from outside the United States.  In the United States, it can seem at times like "Christian conferencing" or "holy conferencing" is a euphemism for "arguing about homosexuality."  In contrast, neither the Nordic countries nor the Congo are arguing about homosexuality in their United Methodist churches, albeit for very different reasons.  Yet the concept of Christian conferencing still has resonance for these two bishops.  Both bishops recognize this spiritual practice as an important part of our Methodist heritage and common life.

This is a positive reminder to Americans.  "Christian conferencing" or "holy conferencing" is not only about arguing over LGBT ordination and gay marriage.  It is a means of living with and relating to each other as sisters and brothers in faith on a variety of issues.  Gay marriage and LGBT ordination may be the issues of the day in the United States, but there will be and are other issues on other days and in other places that also call for loving, mutual conversation about God's will.  Americans must resist the temptation to make everything about and only about debates on homosexuality.  Our Christian calling, including our calling to treat each other with love as we work towards perfection, is a calling on all areas of our lives.  Debates about gay marriage and LGBT ordination may be important to both sides for good theological reasons, but we do a disservice to the concept of Christian conferencing and to our faith as a whole if we reduce it to one issue.  God is at work in the world in many ways, and we would do well to engage in holy conferencing together to discern the full variety of those ways.