Darryl W. Stephens: United Methodists in the Ivory Coast: One Vote, One Million Departures, Many Questions

Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Darryl W. Stephens. Rev. Dr. Stephens is Director of United Methodist Studies at Lancaster Theological Seminary and is author of many books, articles, and chapters on Methodism, including Methodist Morals: Social Principles in the Public Church’s Witness(2016) and Reckoning Methodism: Mission and Division in the Public Church (2024).

The United Methodist Church (UMC) potentially lost one million members on May 28, 2024, complicating its ambition to become a “worldwide” denomination. In a special session held in Abidjan, the annual conference of the United Methodist Church of Ivory Coast (EMUCI, Eglise Méthodiste Unie Côte d’Ivoire) voted “For reasons of conscience before God and His word, the supreme authority in matters of faith and life . . . to leave the United Methodist Church denomination.” (Reported by La Croix International. See also UM News.) The departure is not yet finalized.

The vote followed an eventful General Conference in Charlotte, NC, in which the denomination’s longstanding prohibitions against LGBTQ clergy and same-sex marriage were lifted. The UMC Discipline (book of law and doctrine) now takes a permissive stance, allowing discernment on these issues at the local and regional levels of the UMC, which has conferences in Africa, Europe, North America, and the Philippines.

Contextually flexible ministry to and with LGBTQ persons precipitated the vote by United Methodists in Côte d’Ivoire to leave the UMC. The EMUCI president, Bishop Benjamin Boni, explained: “the United Methodist Church now rests on socio-cultural values that have consumed its doctrinal and disciplinary integrity” (La Croix International). Did the Ivorians join the UMC under the false assumption that its policies on homosexuality would never change?

None of the denomination’s prior prohibitions against same-sex marriage or ordination of a “self-avowed practicing homosexual” were matters of doctrine. Like long-standing prohibitions against alcohol, tobacco, and divorce in generations past, these policies on sexual morality rested on social statements (for discussion, see Methodist Morals, pp. 31–41). Unlike the UMC’s “standards of doctrine” (Book of Discipline 2016, ¶ 17), the Social Principles—and any policies built on them—can be changed with a simple majority vote at General Conference.

Although their “marriage” was never very intimate, the failing merger of the UMC and the Methodist Protestant Church of Côte d’Ivoire raises significant questions regarding the “worldwide nature” of the UMC and its global ambitions.

A Surprise Wedding

The Methodist Protestant Church of Côte d’Ivoire and the UMC initiated their merger in 2004. Was this joining of denominational bodies a merger, a partnership, a marriage, or something else? The initial commitment to unite the UMC and the Methodist Protestant Church of Côte d’Ivoire came as a surprise to all parties—the ecclesial equivalent to an elopement.

The Ivorians had operated as an independent ecclesial body for less than twenty years. Established as a church in 1924, Methodists in Côte d’Ivoire became autonomous from the British Methodist Church in 1985 (for a history, see https://www.umnews.org/en/news/a-brief-history-of-methodism-in-cote-divoire). This church subsequently requested mission status from the UMC’s General Board of Global Ministries circa 2001 in anticipation of joining the UMC in 2008.

Through a petition to the General Conference of 2004, the Commission on Central Conference Affairs recommended referring the matter to its executive committee for further study. However, during the General Conference plenary, a delegate made a substitute motion to add Côte d’Ivoire without delay. It passed. The United Methodist News Service reported a one-million-member increase for the UMC, documenting surprise and delight among the respective leaders involved.

After the initial euphoria and a more precise census, the Judicial Council ruled that the appropriate Disciplinary procedures had not been followed, delaying a merger of the two churches until 2008. Lack of sufficient premarital counseling and a hurried wedding did not bode well for a successful marriage between the UMC and the Methodist Protestant Church of Côte d’Ivoire. Many issues of how to be church together remained unaddressed.

An Unconsummated Marriage

At the time of merger, Côte d’Ivoire became the UMC’s largest annual conference, and it was clear who held the power and controlled the finances. I do not know what motivated the Ivorian leaders to seek to become part of the UMC. However, the results included consecration of a bishop, access to US-funded agencies, and other denominational resources. Despite the perception of mutual benefits, the 2008 merger maintained the inequalities and disparities of the central conference structure in the UMC. The institutional integration of the two churches was never fully consummated.

From the outset, the former Methodist Protestant Church of Côte d’Ivoire showed ambivalence about participating in the business of the UMC. Côte d’Ivoire was the only annual conference not in crisis to fail to submit vote totals on the five constitutional amendments approved by General Conference 2016. It was also the only annual conference to fail to revise its membership numbers for the 2020 General Conference delegation calculation. The annual conference has not submitted a journal to the General Council of Finance and Administration since 2016.

The UMC, for its part, did not prioritize this new international partnership. While various shared ministry partnerships arose, the efforts did not endeavor to address fundamental issues. Differences in language, culture, geography, institutional history, and socio-political context on a denominational level were not addressed. Despite a merger of institutions on a similar scale to the 1968 merger that created the UMC, little attention was given to the details of being church together (for discussion, see Reckoning Methodism, pp. 38–44)

Twelve years after the initial vote to acquire the Côte d’Ivoire church, significant aspects of the work of denominational union remained unresolved. General Conference 2016 postponed and referred eight major pieces of legislation to various agencies and commissions, including a Global Book of Discipline, revised Social Principles, and an ongoing study of the “worldwide nature” of the UMC. Meanwhile, United Methodists in the United States perceived few changes, and most were unaware that a merger had occurred.

A Failing Merger and Global Ambitions

Many aspects of this failing merger were specific to the way the UMC and United Methodists in Côte d’Ivoire related to each other. Both sides neglected the relationships and structural changes necessary to forge a shared life together. This union was treated as an acquisition, and these institutions did not view each other as equals. When General Conference finally approved two major pieces of global polity—the Revised Social Principles and a regionalization plan—Boni and other leaders in Côte d’Ivoire decided that the changes were not compatible with their understanding of Methodism. Their planned exit from the UMC could be accomplished as quickly as their entry since there are no strong structural ties. Could an equally swift exit vote happen among United Methodist annual conferences elsewhere in Africa?

It is possible that conferences in Nigeria, Zimbabwe, South Congo, and others could also vote to depart the UMC—though this is unlikely. The Africa Forum supported the recent regionalization legislation, and connectional relationships appear much stronger beyond the denominational newcomers in Côte d’Ivoire. Whether the UMC mirrors the cross-cultural antagonism found within other church bodies, such as the Anglican Communion, or finds a different path for international cooperation remains to be seen.

The failing merger of the UMC and the Methodist Protestant Church of Côte d’Ivoire exposes the difficulties of realizing United Methodism’s global ambitions. The ambition for global expansion appears to be motivated by a US, imperialistic mindset. The project of building a “worldwide” church is funded through US apportionments and is emblematic of cultural power and prestige. In a winner-obsessed culture, nothing is more indicative of success than increasing numbers, whether through baptisms or acquisition. Despite a century of perpetual studies of “Methodism overseas” and the “worldwide nature” of this denomination, the UMC has yet to adequately address its replication of the structures of empire.

For the project of a “worldwide” church to be shared among United Methodists outside of the United States, international partnerships must be mutually transforming. For a lasting marriage, US United Methodists will have to do church differently—or suffer yet another departure from the US “mother church.”

Further Reading

Maia, Filipe, and David W. Scott, eds. Methodism and American Empire: Reflections on Decolonizing the Church. Nashville: Abingdon, 2023.

Scott, David W. “Is Being a World-Wide Denomination an American Aspiration?” UM & Global, June 14, 2019. http://www.umglobal.org/2019/06/is-being-world-wide-denomination.html.

Stephens, Darryl W. Methodist Morals: Social Principles in the Public Church’s Witness. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2016.

———. Reckoning Methodism: Mission and Division in the Public Church. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2024.

It Was a Good General Conference for Europeans

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 recently concluded General Conference was an historic one, marking a dramatic shift in tone from previous General Conferences and a clear (if not universal) consensus on the direction for the church in the future. Among the General Conference's many accomplishments were passage of the "3 R's": regionalization, revised Social Principles, and removal of the restrictive language on ministry with and by LGBTQ+ persons in the denomination.

As the wide vote margins on most issues showed, this work of turning from conflict toward a renewed focus on future ministry was carried forward by delegates from all over the world.

In particular, the Africa Forum showed its significance as an organizing body. Heading into the conference, many observers in the United States were uncertain how African delegates would vote on key issues. But the hard work by leaders in the Africa Forum was key in African support for regionalization and the revised Social Principles. Also key was the Africa Forum's grace-filled decision to allow US United Methodists to embrace inclusive ministry in the US context while maintaining a traditional religious and cultural understanding of marriage in the African context.

Regionalization also owes so much to Filipina/o leaders in the denomination. Many of the early leaders of the Christmas Covenant were Filipinos and Filipinas, and it was an annual conference from the Philippines that sent the Christmas Covenant legislation to General Conference, legislation which became the basis for the Worldwide Regionalization proposal that was passed. Drawing on a history of thinking deeply about autonomy and connectionalism, Filipina/o writers have also had some of the most eloquent reflections on and arguments for regionalization.

But I found myself thinking at General Conference how European United Methodists have had a special role in much of what happened at this General Conference. European United Methodists also contributed to the Christmas Covenant and advocating for regionalization. We saw Bishop Rückert's leadership repeatedly in making presentations to General Conference on regionalization and other topics, and Bishop Streiff and others were leading that work before him.

The revised Social Principles arose because of a request from European delegates to a previous General Conference for more globally-relevant statements of the denomination's social teachings.

Removing the restrictive language both is an important step for Western Europeans and validates the general European approach of seeking local control over marriage and ministry, with the understanding that Eastern and Western Europeans will have different approaches.

Even the departure of the Eurasia Episcopal Area, bittersweet though it may have been, was a validation of local decision making about future connectional arrangements by European leaders.

I say this not to lionize European United Methodists or to suggest that they deserve more credit than others. Certainly, there is credit enough to go around for all that was accomplished in Charlotte.

But I think the contributions that European United Methodists made to this General Conference show something important, as do Filipino contributions to the Christmas Covenant. European United Methodists are a very small group spread out over many countries in languages. In many ways, they are functionally marginal to a denomination that is overwhelmingly African and North American.

Yet, it is often from the margins that the most important ideas and innovations come. Without the contributions of European United Methodists to a vision of global equity and a structure that works for all around the world, and without Filipino/a leadership in advancing the project of regionalization, we would not have the church we are now celebrating. Good ideas and insights come from the margins.

The bulk of United Methodists live in the United States and in various African countries, especially the DRC. The relationship between United Methodists in the US and those in Africa will continue to be a critical focus for the denomination, especially as the drive for ratification and implementation of regionalization proceeds.

But as Africa and the United States rightfully receive a lot of attention going forward, the contributions of European and Filipina/o United Methodists remind us that we depend as a connection on the generous offering of gifts, ideas, and insights from our entire connection. Who knows where the next big ideas that will shape the future of the denomination will come from? If the past is any guide, we should continue to look to the wisdom and insight of small groups with unique perspectives.

Jefferson Knight: Addressing Human Sexuality in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline: A Missional Imperative

Today's post is by Jefferson Knight. Knight is Program Director of the United Methodist Human Rights Monitor in Liberia and a delegate of the Liberia Annual Conference to the 2024 General Conference of the United Methodist Church.

The United Methodist Church is currently embroiled in a significant crisis regarding the definition of marriage within its doctrine. The looming conflict arises from the potential attempt by the General Conference of The United Methodist Church to change the definition of marriage, a move that could lead to serious repercussions across its global connections.

One of the primary reasons for the potential conflict is the disparity in the legal and cultural context of marriage across different regions, particularly in relation to same-sex marriage. In the United States, same-sex marriage has been legally recognized since the landmark Supreme Court decision in 2015. However, this legal framework is not universally applicable, especially in other parts of the world, such as Africa and certain other regions.

In many African countries, laws criminalize same-sex marriage, reflecting deeply ingrained cultural and religious beliefs. As a result, any attempt by The United Methodist Church to change its definition of marriage to include same-sex unions would clash with the legal and cultural norms prevalent in these regions, potentially causing significant discord within the global church community.

Furthermore, United Methodists in the United States and other Western countries may find themselves in a constant state of conflict with the Book of Discipline of the UMC if they were to adhere to their national laws, which permit same-sex marriage, while other countries, particularly in Africa, maintain laws that explicitly criminalize such unions.

This stark contrast in legal frameworks creates a complex and challenging situation for the church, with divergent interpretations of the Book of Discipline causing tension between different regions and members.

This situation has led to the formation of the Global Methodist Church, a US-based denomination that broke away from The United Methodist Church, and it has also led to the disaffiliation of churches from the UMC, mainly in the United States.

In light of these challenges, it is evident that The United Methodist Church must seek a solution that respects the diverse legal, cultural, theological, biblical, and regional contexts within which it operates. One potential path forward could involve defining marriage within the Book of Discipline based on regional contexts wherever applicable.

By acknowledging the legal and cultural differences across its global connections, The United Methodist Church can strive to define marriage in a manner that respects the varying perspectives and realities of its members. This approach would entail recognizing and respecting the legal frameworks and cultural norms related to marriage in different regions, thereby allowing for a more inclusive and harmonious coexistence within the church.

Moreover, establishing a framework that respects regional variations in the definition of marriage would help mitigate potential conflicts and foster a spirit of unity and understanding within The United Methodist Church. By embracing diversity and adapting its doctrine to reflect the complex realities of its global membership, the church can navigate the current crisis and emerge with a strengthened sense of inclusivity and community.

However, it is essential to recognize that the missional context of the church extends far beyond the confines of any single issue, including human sexuality. The UMC's global reach necessitates an approach that acknowledges and respects the diverse cultural, social, and theological perspectives of its members across different regions. The proposal to regionalize the church as proposed by the Christmas Covenant underscores the recognition of these differences and the need for a more localized understanding of faith and practice.

The idea of regionalization holds significant potential for addressing the complexities surrounding human sexuality within the UMC. Rather than attempting to impose a singular stance on this issue that may be incongruent with the beliefs of certain regions, a regionalized approach allows for the accommodation of diverse perspectives in accordance with the unique cultural and contextual factors at play.

In conclusion, the crisis facing The United Methodist Church in relation to the definition of marriage underscores the need for a thoughtful and inclusive approach that respects the diverse legal, cultural, and regional contexts within the church's global connections. By defining marriage in the Book of Discipline based on regional context wherever applicable, the church can pave the way for a more harmonious and respectful coexistence, ensuring that all members feel valued and heard within the broader church community.

Recommended Reading: David N. Field on Models of Methodism and the Unity of the Church

David N. Field of the European Methodist e-Academy has published a paper online entitled "Models of Methodism and the Unity of the Church: A European Reflection on the Conflict in The United Methodist Church over LGBTQ+ Inclusion and Affirmation." In the paper, Field outlines six different understandings of church within United Methodism: as a US American denomination, as a European free church, as a connection of holiness societies, as a confessional church, as a generously orthodox church, and as a movement of liberation. While Field's main concern in outlining these six views is to explore their implications for understanding current conflicts over LGBTQ+ inclusion, along the way, he highlights the implications of these views of the church for ecumenism and other aspects of theology. Field acknowledges that his work needs to be supplemented by more attention to African and Filipino understandings of the church. Still, and despite its length (18 pages), Field's piece is well worth reading for a better understanding of the complexities of the current UMC.

A New Era in United Methodist Politics: New Parties

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.

As detailed in my last post, The United Methodist Church is entering a new era of politics, one in which old patterns are being disrupted, leading to fluidity and unpredictability. Four major issues will confront the church—sexuality, unity vs. division, regionalization, and denominational institutions—that cannot be reduced to one another. These different issues have varying significance for individual United Methodists, and individuals’ opinions on one issue are not necessarily good predictors of their opinions on the other issues.

Within that context, this post will try to identify some of the different parties or groups within the church based on the issue or issues they find most important and their stance on issues. There are eight such groups identified. These groups also overlap at points. This variety of overlapping and intersecting groups should underscore the complexity of UMC politics at the present moment.

Traditionalists
Traditionalists have historically been defined by a traditional understanding of sexuality, though not all with a traditional understanding of sexuality count as members of the Traditionalist bloc. Rather, Traditionalists are those who have prioritized engaging in social issue and theological fights within the denomination. This is a significant bloc within the United States with allies in Eurasia, the Philippines, and Africa. The Wesleyan Covenant Association, Good News Magazine, The Confessing Movement, the Africa Initiative, and the Institute on Religion and Democracy are just some of the organizations associated with the Traditionalist bloc.

While historically the Traditionalist bloc has been most concerned with the UMC’s stance on sexuality, a shift has occurred, and the top priority issue for Traditionalists is now passage of the Protocol, which would allow them to leave the denomination relatively easily with their properties and a $25 million payout. Traditionalists appear ambivalent or hostile to efforts to regionalize the church or reform denominational institutions.

Exiting Liberationists
At the other end of the theopolitical spectrum, but in some ways mirroring the Traditionalists, are Liberationists who are planning to exit the denomination. This is a fairly small group of US United Methodists, mostly associated with the Liberation Methodist Connexion, but a number serve as General Conference delegates, making it a notable position. Although the group is defined by its views on sexuality, like Traditionalists, Liberationists’ top issue is currently leaving the denomination. Unlike Traditionalists, however, they are less focused on the Protocol as a means to do so. Like Traditionalists, they are ambivalent or hostile to what happens to the denominational structures they are leaving.

Progressives and Remaining Liberationists
There are a significant bloc of United Methodists in the United States and Europe who plan to remain in the UMC and whose top priority remains changing UMC policy to allow for the ordination of LGBTQ+ individuals and gay marriages. Reconciling Ministries Network and The Liberation Project are expressions of this group, and Progressive concerns are also included in UMC Next and Out of Chaos: Creation, though these groups also contain other elements (as indicated below). For many Progressives, anti-racist work is also a significant issue, though for Progressives in the United States, racism is understood in predominantly US-centric rather than global terms. Progressives and remaining liberationists are open to other issues, and some individuals are also part of other groups advocating for institutional reform, unity, and/or regionalization. For many Progressives, though, these other issues continue to be interpreted through the lens of their impact on sexuality.

Institutionalists
There is a significant group of United Methodists around the world who may best be characterized by their loyalty to the institutions of the church and their concern for the future of those institutions. This group includes many bishops, cabinets, and agency staff. Some members of UMC Next are primarily Institutionalists. I believe the term Institutionalist is more helpful than Centrist, since this group is not primarily defined by their position on questions of sexuality but rather by their attachment to the institution; attitudes to sexuality (and other issues) vary within this group, and thus it overlaps with other groups, especially the Progressives, Internationalists, Regionalists, and Localists.

The primary political goal of this group is to preserve the current structures of the UMC to the extent possible. However, the “to the extent possible” phrase indicates the difficulties in achieving this goal and the diversity of approaches toward that goal. There is internal conflict among Institutionalists over how best to preserve structures and how much to spend on this effort. Most Institutionalists, though, form their opinions in response to various official proposals (GCFA proposals, episcopal study committee recommendations, calls by the bishops, etc.).

Innovators
There is another group that is also primarily defined by their views on the institutions of the UMC. However, rather than trying to preserve those institutions, this group sees the current moment in the church as an opportunity to make significant changes and reforms to those institutions. Many also support regionalization as part of those larger changes. There is diversity within this group over how best to innovate, with a variety of unique solutions set forward. This is a very small group of inside players, including some bishops, agency staff, and church planters, but because they are inside players, their views garner attention.

Internationalists
There is a significant minority of United Methodists throughout the world who are primarily characterized by their commitment to preserving some sort of organic connection between different regions of the UMC, that is, unity. This view is strongest in the central conferences and finds expression in groups like the Christmas Covenant, central conference bishops, Africa Voices of Unity, and Out of Chaos: Creation (though that last group also reflects Progressive views).

This group is generally supportive of regionalization as a means to preserve (and reform) international connectional structures. Many are critical of colonialism (and its associated racism) in the church as a hindrance to international connectional structure. Members of this group hold a variety of views on denominational institutions, but they generally recognize a need to make some changes and reforms. This group also holds a variety of views regarding sexuality, with those views mainly falling out along geographic lines. Nevertheless, they are generally willing to let that issue be decided locally.

Regionalists
While the groups mentioned thus far are primarily defined by their stance on denomination-wide issues, the last two groups are characterized by a more limited geographic focus. Regionalists are those United Methodists who are most concerned with the future of the UMC in their region, regardless of what happens to the rest of the denomination globally. This is a significant position in the Western Jurisdiction in the United States and throughout the central conferences.

Regionalists may be either progressive (e.g., the Western Jurisdiction, Germany) or traditionalist (e.g., Africa) on issues of sexuality, but are mostly focused on finding local solutions to conflicts over sexuality, regardless of the actions of the rest of the denomination. Regionalists are generally supportive of regionalization (e.g., through passing the Christmas Covenant) as a means to facilitate a primary focus on regional issues. There is a significant overlap with internationalists, though the two groups differ in the emphasis given to the two parts of the formula “unity through regionalization.”

Localists
It is easy for United Methodist insiders to forget that the single largest group of laity and one of the most significant groups of clergy around the world is primarily concerned not with denomination-wide issues, but with church, district, and annual conference issues. Such a focus is almost non-existent among US General Conference delegates because of the nationalization of politics within the United States, but Localists are still a notable group among African, Filipino, and Eastern European delegates. These delegates are elected to General Conference not because of their position on denominational issues but because of their prominence within the annual conference. Indeed, some Localist delegates may be relatively uninformed or not have strong opinions on many denomination-wide issues. Because of their geographic background, Localists tend to be traditionalist in their understanding of sexuality, but this position does not necessarily predict their position on other pressing issues such as the Protocol, Christmas Covenant, or reforming denominational institutions.

An Era of New Parties
As I hope the above makes clear, it is difficult to predict any given United Methodist’s stance on the whole range of issues before the church based on their stance on any one issue. There are differences both among and within parties on the salience of issues and the right solution to those issues. This means that there is both a significant amount of uncertainty around how the church will move forward on its most pressing issues and a significant opportunity for forging new coalitions between various groups. Indeed, the politics of the UMC going forward will be determined by what new coalitions arise and how strong those coalitions prove to be.

A New Era in United Methodist Politics: New Issues

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.

For years now, if not for decades, politics in The United Methodist Church have reflected politics in the United States: they have been dominated by a conflict between traditional and progressive blocs over social issues. In the UMC, the most contentious such issues have been gay marriage and gay ordination.

Things, however, are changing. Under the impact of a variety of forces, a new set of issues will dominate The United Methodist Church in the next few years, bringing with them new coalitions of players. This post will examine the new issues and the forces leading to their prominence, while a subsequent post will examine the new array of parties within the church as defined by these new issues.

The Forces Reshaping the UMC
There are three main forces that have pushed the church into a new era of internal politics. The first of these is the breakdown of existing denominational structures’ ability to manage the conflict over sexuality.

As much as this conflict has characterized the church for forty years, for much of this time, the denominational system gave players on both sides enough hope that their position could prevail that they were motivated to stay involved, and the rest of the work of the denomination could continue despite the conflict.

Increasingly over the last decade, but especially since the called General Conference in February 2019, the denominational system has no longer been up to this task. Various players are no longer willing to stay engaged in the fight within the denomination, and the conflict has derailed much of the rest of the work of the denomination. This has happened despite the best efforts of the bishops and the General Conference to find solutions.

The second significant force reshaping the denomination is the increasing voice of non-US United Methodists in denominational affairs. While people around the world have views on issues of sexuality, the conflict over sexuality in the UMC has been a predominantly US-driven issue. Non-US United Methodists are now pushing agendas that they have defined, rather than just responding to issues originating in the United States.

The increased power of voices from outside the United States is the result both of demographic trends in the denomination (decline in US membership and growth in members in the Congo and elsewhere) and a consequence of denominational breakdown. As US church leadership and existing structures have proven unable to manage the denomination’s conflicts, it has emboldened leadership from outside the United States to set forward their own agendas for the church.

The third force is the financial realities brought about by US membership decline. Even independently of the fallout of GC 2019 or the coronavirus pandemic, the UMC would have reached peak apportionments within the last quadrennium, the point at which a rise in the wealth of the US membership (which is the source of 99% of denominational funds) could no longer make up for a decline in that membership. The exodus of members and congregations after GC 2019 and the financial fallout of the pandemic have, however, made the financial situation worse.

The New Issues
Shaped by these three forces, The United Methodist Church must now struggle with a variety of issues that include but go beyond its previous preoccupation with debates over gay marriage and gay ordination. These include gay marriage and ordination, denominational separation, regionalization, and denominational institutions.

Gay marriage and gay ordination, to be sure, do remain significant issues within the church. The United Methodist Church continues to include both people that are committed to ensure that the UMC minister with and through LGBTQ+ persons and people that are committed to ensuring that current prohibitions remain. Many of these people will remain within the denomination, regardless of what happens, and thus will continue to advocate around this issue one way or another. Still, it is worth noting that most major legislation coming before the next General Conference does not directly address the denomination’s stance on this issue.

Some with strong positions on gay marriage and gay ordination, though, have decided that they want to leave the denomination, either to ensure that they may fully include LGBTQ+ persons or to ensure that traditional understandings of sexuality are upheld. For these people, the primary question is no longer what the official position of the UMC will be, but what the terms will be under which they can exit the denomination. On the opposing side, there are those, especially from the central conferences, who feel it is very important to preserve denominational unity and are opposed to formal separation of the denomination. The Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation is a major legislative proposal related to this issue, but the issue of separation is not limited to passage or rejection of the Protocol, and trickles down to annual conference politics as well.

Another issue on which United Methodists from the Central Conferences have been making their voices heard is the need for greater regionalization, contextualization, and equality across branches of the church. United Methodists from the central conferences have been interested in this issue for some time, and the current disfunction within the US UMC has given new impetus to press for changes to the denomination’s organization that would preserve connection but separate out predominantly US matters from denomination-wide discussions and give other areas of the world greater equality with the US branch of the church.

Since this sort of restructuring can only happen through act of the General Conference, this issue is particularly General Conference-focused. The major piece of legislation here is the Christmas Covenant, which was put forward by a coalition of United Methodists from outside the United States. These United Methodists will resist the framing of regionalization as a progressive/Traditionalist issue, a framing that contributed to the failure of previous attempts at regionalization, such as proposed 2008 amendments to the church’s constitution.

Finally, there are a set of issues related to the denominational institutions of the church that have taken on significance in light of the denomination’s financial situation and forecasted future. These include the questions of how much in apportionments to ask of (US) churches, how to respond to a shortfall in episcopal funding (including how many bishops to elect), how to carry forward the work of the boards and agencies with reduced funding, and how to respond to reduced budgets at the local and regional levels (including reductions in annual conference budgets and possible redrawing of annual conference lines). In essence, these questions can be boiled down to one: How much of the current denominational institutions can and should be preserved, given current financial realities?

While General Conference 2012’s Plan UMC debate is a predecessor to the current debates, today’s debates go beyond a focus on the general boards and agencies. These financial and structural concerns are in some ways more pressing in the United States, since they effect all levels of church budgets in the United States and since the boards and agencies are all based in the United States. Nevertheless, they have implications around the world, given how significant US funding is for the church globally.

These financial issues are unique in that the questions are not necessarily either/or (as in allow/disallow gay ordination, leave/stay in the denomination, and regionalize/continue current the structure). While there may be either/or elements to these questions (restructure agencies or not, for example), there are also questions of quantity (how many bishops to elect?) and quality (how much support of ministries should agencies provide?).

An Era of New Issues
Each of these four issues has implications for the others, but none of them can simply be reduced to a function of another. And in the same way, the positions that United Methodists are taking around these issues cannot be reduced to a simple progressive/traditionalist division. As I will detail in an upcoming post, there are now a host of parties within the UMC based on which issue is most important and positions on that issue.

Given the amount of change afoot, United Methodist politics are entering a period of fluidity and unpredictability, as old patterns are disrupted. Within that setting, those who continue to understand United Methodist politics primarily in the dualistic terms that have sufficed in recent years will fundamentally misunderstand what is happening in the denomination now.

Recommended Viewing: Global Perspectives at Inclusiveness IV Conference

The United Methodist Association of Retired Clergy (UMARC) has sponsored an annual Inclusiveness Conference since 2017. Initially formed to support Bishop Karen Oliveto and LGBTQ+ inclusion in the church, this year's conference focused heavily on racial justice and other forms of inclusion, such as including more global voices in the conference.

The online conference included a set of presentations on "global perspectives" featuring the following speakers:

• Rev. Knut Refsdal of Norway talking about LGBTQ+ inclusion and the state of the church in Europe
• Augustine Bahati of Rwanda talking about the church's work in Africa with marginalized people
• Bishop Rudolfo A. Juan talking about the Christmas Covenant
• David W. Scott of UM & Global talking about the importance of understanding people from other contexts on their own terms and recognizing that Black African lives matter
• Rev. Jasper Peters talking about racial and other inclusion in the Mountain Sky Annual Conference

A UM News Service summary of the conference, including some of Dr. Scott's remarks, can be found here. Other videos from the conference can be found on the UMARC homepage.

Recommended Reading: Norwegian United Methodists Decide to Apologize to LGBT+ People

The Norway Annual Conference, during a COVID-delayed meeting last week, decided to issue a public apology to LGBT+ persons, part of a process in the Norway Annual Conference that is intended to result in full inclusion of LGBT+ persons in the life of the church. An article on the church's website announcing the decision described it as follows:

"Ole-Einar Andersen was the original proponent of an apology for the treatment LGBT+ people have been subjected to in the Methodist Church and the damage individuals have suffered. There was a long debate where many took the floor. Everyone agreed on the need to apologize where injustice has been done to individuals, but a minority did not want to apologize for the church's traditional teachings.

"In an amendment proposal from Kirsti Dahl Johansen, Andersen's intention was supported, but the actual formulation of the text will be left to the [annual conference] Executive Board and the cabinet. The conference wanted to give the Executive Board and the Cabinet time to formulate the apology for the treatment LGBT+ people have been subjected to and to weigh the text for the process [the annual conference is] in.

"A sentence in Andersen's original proposal was cited by many as a good starting point: 'We acknowledge that through condemnatory attitudes and actions we have inflicted great harm, pain, sorrow and suffering on fellow human beings, contrary to the gospel of God's unconditional grace and love for all.

"A proposal to postpone consideration of the proposal was rejected.

"The amendment received 70 votes in favor, 32 voted against and 6 abstained. Two proposals to temporarily lift restrictions on marriage and ordination of LGBT+ people in the Methodist Church, and reject restrictions adopted in the worldwide [Traditional] Plan, were postponed earlier today to the first annual conference after the next general conference.

"It was the annual conference in 2019 that took an important path in a consensus decision where it was stated that the Methodist Church in Norway is on its way to full inclusion of LGBT + people."

Translated from the Norwegian by Google Translate and David W. Scott

Recommended Readings: German Plans for Denominational Future Solidify

As this blog has previously shared ([1] and [2]), German United Methodists have been working on a solution that would preserve the unity of the denomination in the country while allowing for differences in understandings of human sexuality, including the practice of gay marriage and gay ordination by some. This process has been led by a roundtable group appointed by Bishop Rückert.

As this recent article (in German) by Klaus Ulrich Ruof indicates, this roundtable process has now come to an end, and the roundtable has submitted its proposal to the central conference's Executive Committee. The proposal calls for removal of passages of the German version of the Book of Discipline that prohibit gay marriage and gay ordination and the formation of an association of traditionalist individual and congregations within Germany to facilitate mutual support among those holding traditionalist views. This proposal came with a high degree of support across the theological spectrum.

As further reported by Ruof (again in German), this past weekend, the proposal was considered by the central conference's Executive Committee. The Executive Committee decided to implement this solution provisionally until it can be formally approved at the next meeting of the Germany Central Conference, currently scheduled for fall of 2021.

Recommended Reading: Germans Elaborate Plans to Stay Together

In the wake of General Conference 2019, the Germany Central Conference made an interesting resolution: They would reject the Traditionalist plan but stay together as a denomination, despite varying opinions on sexuality. This resolution led to an ongoing roundtable process that produced, in January of this year, "a system for preserving the connection" in Germany that would eliminate Book of Discipline language prohibiting gay ordination and gay weddings but also create a new association for German United Methodists with traditionalist views on homosexuality. On July 17th, the roundtable members held their first meeting since releasing the framework of this plan. As news coverage of, including an abridged report from, this meeting make clear, Germans are continuing to move forward with both parts of this plan, with the intention of granting provisional approval this November at a short meeting of the central conference, with full approval at the postponed regular meeting of the central conference in 2021. The work at the July meeting focused mostly on elaborating the new structure for traditionalist German United Methodists. More details are available in the full report of the meeting and the theological foundations for the new traditionalist association. All links are in German.

The Traditionalist Bid for Africa

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.

With the postponement of General Conference until the end of August 2021 and plenty of other things to focus on, especially a global pandemic and a movement for racial equality, many United Methodists in the United States, especially centrists and progressives, have been relatively distracted from denominational politics. In addition, key foci of progressive and centrist agitating—annual conference ordination ceremonies and weddings—have been among the events most disrupted by the pandemic.

So-called Traditionalists, however, have continued to push forward with their plans for creating a new denomination. The Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) has continued to release drafts of portions of a new Book of Discipline. United Methodist Traditionalists, sometimes working with ecumenical partners from other Wesleyan/Holiness churches, have also launched new media channels including an online magazine and a podcast to promote their point of view.

Key within on-going Traditionalist efforts to create a new denomination has been a focused attempt this summer to recruit African United Methodists to join that new denomination. These attempts are evident in surveying a variety of blog posts and articles across Traditionalist outlets.

Keith Boyette of the WCA re-stated the goal in a June 12 post on the WCA site entitled “The Beauty of a Global Church.” In the piece, he wrote, “We will only be the church Jesus is building if we are truly global in every way.” Although Boyette disclaimed, “Being a global church is not simply about having churches around the world and members from every nation,” having churches around the world is an express goal of the UM Traditionalist movement. “That is rudimentary,” he said.

Global ambitions are not new for Traditionalists. Just after General Conference 2019, Traditionalist theologian Billy Abraham wrote about “the genuinely global nature of our enterprise” and hinted that other (even non-United) Methodists from around the world might be interested in joining “an orthodox, global, intellectually vibrant, Spirit-energized, socially engaged version of Methodism.”

Yet this summer’s developments go beyond US traditionalists re-stating their global ambitions. A number of articles have sought to undercut the African bishops as leaders and to assure Africans that their financial interests will be taken care of in a new, Traditionalist denomination.

The summer has seen pieces by Africa Initiative leaders Jerry Kulah (May 26 interview by the Institute on Religion and Democracy’s Mark Tooley) and Forbes Matonga (June 15 article in Firebrand) in which they have opined on the future of the UMC. Matonga’s piece in particular makes the case that the unofficial, unelected Africa Initiative is the true representatives of African United Methodism, not the polity-provided, democratically elected bishops.

Moreover, Matonga writes, “If Africa is allowed freely to choose its future, it will definitely go with the conservative side of the church. But given the manipulation, intimidation, and pure dishonesty by a few powerful African bishops, the African church shall split just like what is happening to the American church.” This sets up African affiliation with US Traditionalists as the default, normalizes division within the African church, and undermines the bishops as a source of leadership by labeling their leadership efforts as “manipulation, intimidation, and pure dishonesty.”

In a further attempt to undermine African bishops as a source of leadership, Good News Magazine’s Tom Lambrecht published two pieces “Violations in Central Congo” on July 17 and “Looking for Accountability in North Katanga” on July 27. These two pieces lay forth allegations of misconduct by Boards of Ordained Ministry and bishops against pastors and laity in the Congo who were disciplined by the church. Lambrecht asserts that the Boards and bishops violated processes laid out in the Book of Discipline, while failing to acknowledge that the Book of Discipline that is operative in the Congo is an adaptation and translation of the 1988* Discipline, not the 2016 English-language Discipline.

Whatever the merits of the complaints, the impact of the pieces is to undercut the bishops as leaders. They cast Bishops Lunge, Mande, and Unda as liberal on the questions of gay ordination and gay marriage (by their willingness to stay within The United Methodist Church), with the complainants as the real Traditionalists. Lambrecht writes, “The underlying issue behind the singling out of some pastors and laity for punishment has to do with the church’s position regarding marriage and human sexuality,” although the reality is almost certainly more complex than this reduction of the conflict to a single issue that is most salient in the US, not Africa. It characterizes the bishops’ actions as flowing from a lack of accountability and implies that their political opponents within the UMC would fair better under a Traditionalist church with “a more robust accountability mechanism for bishops at the global level.”

Funding is also a concern in a number of pieces appearing this question. Questions about funding are a significant portion of Mark Tooley’s interview of Jerry Kulah cited above, though Kulah, as in past statements, does not seem concerned about funding as a major factor that should impact the church in Africa’s decision.

In early June, the WCA announced recipients of its Central Conference Ministry Fund. The WCA awarded just over $200,000 in grants, mostly to Africa, with a promise of another $100,000 in grants to be announced in November. This announcement was made with great fanfare, despite the yearly total representing as little as 0.3% of the yearly total support by US United Methodists of their sisters and brothers in the central conferences.

June also saw another trial balloon for mechanisms of Traditionalist funding of African ministers. A piece by Davies Musigo, a United Methodist pastor in Kenya, on the Traditionalist-oriented Spirit & Truth site for which he serves as Africa Regional Director, included an appeal to give to Spirit & Truth’s “Kenya Fund.” No information has been released on how much was collected in this way.

John Lomperis of the Institute on Religion and Democracy wrote a three-part article in which he argues that United Methodists in the central conferences would be better served financially to affiliate with a Traditionalist denomination. He first critiques a centrist talking point about 78% of global UMC funding coming from centrist and progressive US United Methodists. Then, using data from this blog in misleading ways, Lomperis argues that, because local church partnerships represent a major source of US funding for the central conferences, a significant portion of US funding is Traditionalist-provided, though Lomperis does not offer hard numbers for the amount of local church partnerships or annual conference apportionments that come from Traditionalist congregations. Finally, while acknowledging that US giving overall will decline and that cross-denominational financial partnerships will be possible, he asserts that Traditionalists have the financial best interests of United Methodists outside of the US at heart, while centrists and progressives want to cut their funding.

Thus, the Traditionalist argument is clear: United Methodists in Africa should affiliate with a new, Traditionalist denomination because of their views on sexuality. Even if their bishops oppose such a move, their leadership is illegitimate. Plus, affiliating with Traditionalists is in Africans’ financial best interests.

Most Traditionalist United Methodists, as well as most centrists and progressives, honestly believe that those United Methodists outside of the United States would be best served by continuing to be affiliated with them. Ultimately, it is up to Africans to decide which case is more convincing. The unfortunate point is that Africans are being forced to choose sides and, in the process, divisions that originated in the US are being spread to other areas of the world.

* An earlier version of this article originally indicated that the BOD used in the Congo is an adaptation of the 1984 BOD. The 1990 Africa Central Conference BOD is an adaptation of the 1988 BOD.

Recommended Reading: Michigan-Liberia Partnership

The Michigan Annual Conference recently posted this report about signing a new covenant to continue a 20-year long partnership between United Methodists in Michigan and those in Liberia. What makes this story particularly interesting is the way in which it honestly acknowledges the deep differences between Michigan and Liberia about the place of LGBTQ persons in the church and the tensions that those differences bring to the partnership. Moreover, the story indicates that those tensions exist for both parties - Liberians, as well as Michiganders, debated whether to reaffirm their partnership. Ultimately, both parties did, for the sake of the mutual mission and ministry that their partnership has facilitated and will continue to facilitate, despite the real potential that the two groups could end up in separate denominations. While it may or may not appear in official press, the sorts of conversations, tensions, and reassessment of missional relationships described in this article are certainly occurring for many such partnerships across the denomination.

A System for Preserving the UMC Connection in Germany

Today’s post is a translation of Klaus Ulrich Ruof’s article “Verbund für den Erhalt der Verbindung,” first published on the website of the Evangelisch-methodistische Kirke, the UMC in Germany. The translation is by UM & Global’s Dr. David W. Scott.

A System for Preserving the Connection

After four meetings, the central Round Table of the UMC in Germany reached a unanimous outcome for a common way forward.

On January 10th and 11th, the round table chaired by Harald Rückert, bishop of the UMC responsible for Germany, had its fourth meeting. In terms of content, this meeting in Fulda was expected to be a critical turning point. The report written by two members of the Round Table is now available. An excerpt of the entire text is presented here:

“The fourth meeting of the round table: 19 Christians - 15 hours of struggle together for the future way of the Church.

“On January 10th and 11th, the members of the Round Table, who came together from all three annual conferences of the UMC in Germany and brought very different theological convictions with them, met together in Fulda under the leadership of Bishop Harald Rückert. Up for debate was the way forward for the UMC in Germany in the face of different basic convictions on questions of homosexuality. The crucial question way: Is it possible to work out a common proposal for the way forward for the church?

“The meeting began with a time of devotions and prayer, in which prayer partners of different theological positions came together with each other. Overall, prayer and an orientation toward God formed a special point of emphasis for the encounter. The first order of business was the analysis of the approximately 200 multifaceted responses to the proposals of the Round Table that were sent in by individuals, groups and congregations of the UMC.

“Afterwards, it was time to do continued work on the Book of Discipline of the UMC. Because of the clear disagreement in the basic convictions about questions of homosexuality, the members of the Round Table propose to delete all passages that speak about the ordination of people with homosexual orientation and the blessing of same-sex partnerships. Every phrase in each sentence here was considered with much diligence. No other wording has been added instead. With regard to ordination, the Board of Ordained Ministry would still have the task of examining all candidates concerning their basic suitability. The deletions in the Book of Discipline would neither prescribe nor prohibit blessings of same-sex couples. Church councils should be able to discuss blessings of same-sex couples in their own churches and can make decisions.

The third task was continued work on the description of associations that could be formed to give people a connecting point, if they cannot, out of conviction, support the named deletions. It was finally unanimously decided that the Round Table of the central conference for the moment only suggests the formation of an association: an association that expressly maintains the previous position of the Book of Discipline on homosexuality and thus offers a home for those with traditional, conservative positions. With its own theological statement, this association should give its members security in their beliefs and actions. The association is open to districts, congregations, and also individuals. It will choose a leadership team, and the leader will be in close contact with the church leadership. Congregations should be able to vote if they would like to join such an association.

“After a long and challenging struggle, the members of the Round Table finally voted unanimously for the overall package of the proposal worked out. There are still a few details to be clarified: The concrete form of the aforementioned association will now be designed by a working group of those siblings from the Round Table who will fill it with life. In addition, a name for this association is yet to be found – suggestions for it can gladly be sent to one of the two authors of the report (see below).

“The suggestion of the Round Table will now be presented to the district assemblies and annual conferences of the UMC in Germany and be discussed, before it will finally be laid before the central conference in Zwickau in November 2020 for negotiation. Of course, this happens within consideration of international developments in the UMC. Bishop Harald Rückert also mentioned the proposal recently made by an international group regarding a respectful separation of the Church. The General Conference will discuss this in May 2020.

“The fifteen hours of the meeting of the Round Table were characterized by an intensive struggle: How and in what way do we stay true to the word of God? How do we protect and accompany people in their identity without hurting them? How can we at the same time and as far as possible in our different convictions preserve the unity of the church and of congregations? The future will show if the hard work of the Round Table opens up horizons for this and is sustainable. We may, however, pray for it.

“For the Round Table of the UMC in Germany:
Steffen Klug (steffen.klug (at) emk.de)
Stephan von Twardowski (stephan.twardowski (at) emk.de) │ in January 2020”

“Wonderful Gift of God to Us”
Thus the central Round Table for the UMC in Germany has achieved the essential part of its task, which was to work out a model for the UMC’s Germany Central Conference, meeting in November. Very helpful in this regard were the around 200 submitted responses, for which the members of the Round Table “heartily thank all those who, as individuals, congregations, and districts thought to give feedback to our circle.” A thank-you letter to submitters states, “The various messages again and again seeped into the entire meeting in Fulda in our discussion and our prayers and found consideration. That at the end, a unanimous decision for a common way for the UMC in Germany could be reached by the Round Table, despite varying views, is not just luck, but before all also a wonderful gift of God to us.”

The full report (in German) is available here.

2019 in Review

As the United Methodist News Service has concluded, and pretty much anyone else observing The United Methodist Church in 2019 has agreed, the top story in United Methodism from this past year is the on-going fight over the place of LGBTQ persons in the church, especially as it played out at General Conference 2019 and the aftermath of that event.

The centrality of that conflict for United Methodists around the world has certainly made an impact on the sorts of content this blog has presented over the past year. Yet, rather than comment on the political mobilizations or talking points that often reinforce the views of one side or another, UM & Global has tried to provide unique perspectives on that conflict, such as the following:

  * Dana Robert's excellent piece on the impact of a potential church split on women

  * Articles on how central conference perspectives on this conflict differ from US perspectives and need to be taken seriously, including special attention to Filipino perspectives

  * Coverage of how this conflict is playing out in European United Methodism and its search for a way forward as annual conferences and central conferences

  * Research on the international financial arrangements of the church and how these would be impacted by a church split

  * Reflections on what we as United Methodists can learn from our autonomous affiliated sisters and brothers about how to be the church across denominational lines

Yet 2019 was not just about the conflict over the treatment of LGBTQ persons. Mission continues, no matter what is happening with church structures, and this blog examined several important threads related to mission as well, including the following:

  * The bicentennial of mission in the United Methodist tradition

  * The practice of UMVIM and other short-term mission trips

  * African women's perspectives on mission

  * The definition of mission

  * Multiculturalism and cross-cultural interactions as a central part of mission

While it's certain that 2020 will bring a certain amount of stories related to General Conference 2020 and the conflict over sexuality, UM & Global will remain committed to providing unique perspectives on that conflict (look for a series on the legal and financial implications of the trust clause starting soon!) and will remain committed to telling other important stories about mission and the global nature of the church.

Thanks for your readership, and see you next year!
Dr. David W. Scott, blogmaster

The UMC and Jared Diamond’s Upheaval, Part 5: Group Cohesion and Conclusion

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
 
Having laid out an assessment of the crisis that the UMC is facing, and having laid out the framework that Jared Diamond used in his book Upheaval to assess nation’s abilities to effectively resolve national crisis, I will now examine those factors (adapted for denominations instead of nations) as they apply to The United Methodist Church. I will look at the factors in a different order that Diamond listed them, grouping them instead into four related categories. This post will look at the fourth category:

Denominational Factors Related to Group Cohesion
Finally are two factors related not to a crisis itself, but to the group experiencing it: How strong are the senses of denominational identity and a shared set of denominational core values? Diamond writes about national identity being a particularly important factor for nations resolving crises.

6. Denominational identity
Up until 2019, a sense of denominational identity was rather high in The United Methodist Church. For many leaders and active participants in the UMC, it was important not just that they were Christians or that they were in the Wesleyan/Methodist family, but that they were specifically United Methodist. This is shown, for instance, in attachment to the cross and flame logo or denominational touchstones like the hymn “O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing” or pride in UMCOR.

There was not necessarily strong agreement as to what constituted the core of that identity, and indeed that has been a matter of significant debate. Nevertheless, most parties did have a sense that a United Methodist identity, however defined, was important to them.

It is this sense of denominational identity that has kept the various parties within the UMC at the table. None were willing to walk away because each had a sense that there would be a real loss associated with no longer being part of this denominational identity.

That has changed for many US American United Methodists since General Conference 2019. Many US Americans have begun to question how important it is to them to be specifically United Methodist and to consider futures in which they are no longer part of the UMC.

This decrease in the perceived importance of denominational identity makes it less likely that the denomination will successfully resolve its crisis as an organizational whole. It increases the possibility that the crisis will be resolved by some leaving the denomination, singly or in groups.

11. Denominational core values
While, as noted above, certain touchstones of United Methodist identity are widely shared – the cross and flame, UMCOR, etc. – there is significant debate over the core of denominational identity. Nowhere is that more true than the area of denominational core values.

Debates over the status of LGBTQ persons in the church have highlighted the differences in what different groups of United Methodists perceive to be the core values of the denomination. Kendall Soulen and others have analyzed the debate between traditionalists and progressives as the consequence of different framings of the situation that emphasize either holiness and obedience or justice and liberation. Mission is a core value for many United Methodists, but that value is understood and practiced differently.

The issue of shared core values becomes even more complicated when one takes into account the international nature of the church. As I have shown for Filipino United Methodists, even when Filipinos share core values with American Traditionalists, Centrists, or Progressives, they way they understand those values and connect them to one another differs from the way US American United Methodists approach these core values.

Thus, shared core values for the denomination as an ideological and international whole may not exist.

Conclusion
This brings us to the end of the twelve factors identified by Jared Diamond as relevant to whether and how nations resolve crises. Assuming these factors have some validity for denominations as well as nations has allowed me to take stock of the UMC’s strengths and weaknesses as it attempts to resolve its current crisis of division over sexuality, declining US membership and giving, and difficult international decision-making.

Diamond does not intend his schema as mathematically predictive, and neither do I for my adaptation of his framework. It is impossible to say that if a nation or denomination has X number of factors in its favor or if it just has factors Y and Z, then it will certainly surmount its crisis. Thus, a review of the crisis-resolution factors in the UMC cannot lead to a definitive prediction of whether or nor the UMC will resolve its current crisis, let alone how.

Nonetheless, it is possible to briefly summarize some findings. While my survey of the twelve factors did identify some assets that the UMC has as it tries to resolve its crisis, the UMC also faces challenges in almost every one of these twelve factors. This should give us pause about the prospects of the UMC successfully resolving its current crisis.

In acknowledging that the UMC may not successfully resolve its current crisis, it is important to keep in mind what the opposite of resolving that crisis means. The opposite of resolving the crisis is not schism or the expulsion of one party. These scenarios resolve the crisis in one fashion or another.

No, the opposite of resolving the crisis is for the crisis to continue. That is the real danger for the UMC.

The UMC and Jared Diamond’s Upheaval, Part 4: Ability to Learn from Crisis

Having laid out an assessment of the crisis that the UMC is facing, and having laid out the framework that Jared Diamond used in his book Upheaval to assess nation’s abilities to effectively resolve national crisis, I will now examine those factors (adapted for denominations instead of nations) as they apply to The United Methodist Church. I will look at the factors in a different order that Diamond listed them, grouping them instead into four related categories. This post will look at the third category:

Denominational Factors Related to Ability to Learn
As Peter Senge and other leadership and organizational theorists have shown, an organization’s ability to successfully adapt and respond to change depends upon its ability not only to act, but to learn from its actions, current and past. Organizations that can learn are better able to adapt and respond to change and thus more likely to survive. Three of the factors identified by Diamond have to do with organizational learning – from previous crises, from failures, and from other organizations.

8. Historical experience of previous denominational crises
This factor asks whether there are previous crises that The United Methodist Church (or its predecessor denominations) has successfully faced from which it can collectively learn lessons and develop a sense of resiliency. There are certainly previous crises in the predecessors of the UMC from which lessons might be learned or resiliency be obtained.

The previous crisis that is most frequently invoked in discussions of the UMC’s current crisis is the split between the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South in 1844 over the issue of slavery. Commentators draw a range of lessons from this division, and it is not clear that there is a consensus on what the lesson of that split was for our current situation. Moreover, that the two denominations did not merge again until 75 years later, and that there were problems with that merger related to underlying issues of race and regionalism indicate that this split is perhaps not the sort of model all hope applies to the current situation.

Changes in church teaching and practices on divorce or clergy smoking tobacco are also sometimes held up as historical examples that the church can successfully resolve dissent over practices related to sexuality, marriage, and ordination. That is true, and the denomination should take some consolation from that, though these issues did not become crises at the same level as our current crisis.

The church could also perhaps learn from the fundamentalist/modernist controversy, which strained most of American Protestantism, but affected Methodists less than other denominations. Some scholars have undertaken to do so, but those lessons are not ones widely discussed.

Other previous crises in the church – especially those leading to splits in the church, such as the variety of holiness departures from the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Association/United Evangelical Church split, or the United Brethren in Christ/United Brethren in Christ (Old Constitution) split – have faded significantly from collective memory and do not seem to be a source of lessons for the present.

It is worth noting that all the examples cited above are from the United States. These examples will not have the same resonance with United Methodists outside the US. Instead, local and regional experiences will lead to other lessons drawn about how to resolve crises, as I have shown for the recent Filipino schism. Knowledge of these crises and the lessons drawn from them are not likely to be shared beyond a particular region.

9. Dealing with denominational failure
According to Diamond, dealing with failure involves the patience to try possible ways to resolve a crisis and the ability to tolerate failure in the process. One could include in this factor the ability to learn from failure, both failures in resolving the present crisis and past collective failures.

However, in the present UMC, failure to resolve the current crisis has seemed to increase emotional tensions within the denomination. General Conference 2016, the Commission on a Way Forward, and General Conference 2019 all failed in their own ways to resolve the denomination’s current crisis, especially as it manifests in the debate about the status of LGBTQ persons in the church.

Rather than the church seeing these failures as teachable moments from which it could learn, the failures have left United Methodists, especially in the United States, with limited remaining patience to try additional solutions to the current crisis to see if they work. Many US United Methodists now want a resolution to the crisis in the next year or two, or else they intend to leave.

The denomination’s attitude towards its current failures can be seen as part of a larger pattern of ignoring or minimizing failures rather than learning from them. Failures are either recast as successes or are edited out of our collective history.

Most United Methodists do recognize the failures inherent in the way that the denomination and its predecessors treated women and people of color, especially in the creation of the segregated Central Jurisdiction. And United Methodists do draw lessons from the movements for ordination of women and the abolition of the Central Jurisdiction. Yet, the focus on these pieces of United Methodist history is often on successfully getting past these failures, e.g., by talking much more about the events that led up to the dissolution of the Central Jurisdiction rather than those that led up to its creation.

Other failures that might be relevant to our current crisis have largely been edited out of our collective history. The financial and membership failures associated with the collapse of the $2 billion (in today’s money) fundraising campaign and the evangelistic campaign both associated with the Mission Centenary, and its long-lasting consequences for the world-wide nature of the church have been intentionally forgotten because the church was unwilling to grapple with this failure. The COSMOS (Commission on the Status of Methodism Overseas) process has also largely been forgotten (outside of this blog) after its failure to move the church to a new model of international decision-making.

5. Using other denominations as models of how to solve the problems
In some ways, The United Methodist Church is trying to do something no other denomination has done – resolve a debate on sexuality as an international denomination. In that regard, there is no model for the UMC. Yet, in looking at the components of the problem, there are models from which the church can draw.

Notably, other mainline US denominations have gone through crises over the status of LGBTQ persons within them, and those crises have been resolved, in one way or another. United Methodists frequently cite the examples of the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and UCC. Less well known is the similar Moravian crisis. United Methodists seem to be committed to learning from these other models.

None of these other denominations are international, though the Episcopalians and Moravians are part of world-wide communions, and the international structures of these two traditions have intersected with how these two denominations resolved their crises over the status of LGBTQ persons in the church.

There are also models from other denominations of how to structure international decision-making within an international Methodist/Wesleyan denomination. The AME Church, AME Zion Church, The Wesleyan Church, the Free Methodist Church, and the Church of the Nazarene have all adopted different models for international decision-making. None of these models were adopted in the midst of debates over sexuality, however. Furthermore, most United Methodists are not familiar with these models and are thus not actively trying to learn from them.

There are no real models for successfully solving one component of the UMC’s crisis – the decline in US membership and giving. No other major US denomination has turned around long-term membership decline.

There are, however, perhaps still some models that are worth examining, both in other denominations and within the UMC. The Fresh Expressions movement in England and elsewhere is a model that many United Methodists are exploring as a means to counteract membership decline.

Moreover, as I have previously argued, examining the practices of racial and ethnic minority UMC churches in the US may yield models, as the total membership of these churches has continued to grow, even while white American membership has declined. Little work has yet been done, though, in trying to identify such models, and the mere suggestion of learning from racial and ethnic minorities has prompted resistance by some in the church.

The UMC and Jared Diamond’s Upheaval, Part 3: Ability to Act in Crisis

Having laid out an assessment of the crisis that the UMC is facing, and having laid out the framework that Jared Diamond used in his book Upheaval to assess nation’s abilities to effectively resolve national crisis, I will now examine those factors (adapted for denominations instead of nations) as they apply to The United Methodist Church. I will look at the factors in a different order that Diamond listed them, grouping them instead into four related categories. This post will look at the second category:

Denominational Factors Related to the Ability to Act
The next set of factors that Diamond identifies as relevant to successful crisis-resolution impact the range of actions that a nation or denomination may take. A denomination may be motivated to action by its identification of a crisis and its acceptance of responsibility for addressing that crisis, as in the first set of factors, but that motivation must play out by considering the range of actions that are or are not possible. Factors related to the ability to act either delineate restrictions on denominational action or assets that may allow a denomination to consider a wider array of actions. The three factors here are denominational flexibility, freedom from constraints, and help from other denominations.

10. Situation-specific denominational flexibility
Diamond questions whether it is really appropriate to speak of nations as having a general disposition towards flexibility or inflexibility. Perhaps it is more appropriate to speak of traditions of flexibility within organizations such as denominations; perhaps not. Nonetheless, I will attempt to do so.

In general, the structures of The United Methodist Church have been fairly stable since 1972. This includes international decision-making structures, financial structures, and structures of organization and leadership, including boards and agencies. Although there have been changes in the Book of Discipline related to sexuality since 1972, in many ways the contours of that debate were set in 1972 as well and have continued since then.

There have been a few significant changes in the UMC since 1972 – the autonomy of the Methodist Church in India, the replacement of the General Council on Ministries with the Connectional Table, and the merger with the Methodist Protestant Church of Cote d’Ivoire. Yet, as Darryl Stephens has shown for the Cote d’Ivoire merger, these changes have not caused wide-spread rethinking of the denomination.

Moreover, some major proposed changes to how the denomination functions that initially seemed possible have been shot down, including making the US a central conference (passed by General Conference and voted down at the annual conference level), reorganizing the boards and agencies as part of Plan UMC (passed by General Conference and overruled by Judicial Council), or ending guaranteed appointment (passed by consent of a General Conference committee and then voted down by the whole body).

Other significant changes, such as a revamp of the Social Principles (up for vote at General Conference 2020) or the development of a Global Book of Discipline (deferred to General Conference 2024) are still in process, and it is too early to know their fate.

Thus, the main contours of the denomination have been in place since 1972, and the denomination has not shown much flexibility since then.

12. Freedom from financial, legal, and cultural constraints
As laid out in my description of the crisis faced by the UMC, the denomination is facing demographic and financial pressures that result from the decline of membership in the US. These pressures result from larger cultural constraints on Christianity in the United States. In the US broadly, adherence to Christianity is declining in both percentage and absolute terms.

The resultant membership and financial pressures act as constraints on the range of option that the UMC considers for its future. Money is indeed an object, both in the US and elsewhere, and at most levels of the church, from the congregational to the general agency. Thus, most actors are weighing their options in the light of the financial implications for their specific organizations and rejecting those options they see as having deleterious financial effects.

A concern for the impact on membership and giving is perhaps most acute at the most local levels. Pastors leading congregations in the US are rightly concerned about whether the crisis in the UMC will trickle down to their congregation, costing them significant numbers of members in a way that would undermine the health of their congregations.

In Europe, where membership is already quite small, there is also a significant concern for how the UMC’s current crisis will impact future membership and the viability of various forms of church organization, from the congregational through to the central conference.

Still, despite the legitimate financial and membership concerns felt by many United Methodists in the face of the present crisis, it is worth noting that the UMC has a wider latitude to operate relative to other denominations. While the departure of, say, 20% of its American membership would no doubt have significant and in some cases severe consequences, it would still leave the UMC the largest mainline Protestant denomination in the United States.

In addition to the financial and membership constraints on the UMC, there are also significant legal and cultural constraints on the denomination related to its stance on homosexuality. As I have detailed for Africa, the Philippines, and Europe, the laws about homosexuality and predominant views of homosexuality in the surrounding culture differ significantly across the United Methodist globe. In some places, the church faces fairly significant legal and cultural opposition to anything that could be construed as acceptance of homosexuality. Especially for places like Russia where the church is small and fragile and there is significant disapproval of homosexuality, the church is quite limited in the range of options it can consider for a viable future.

In general, I think this is one of the things that US American United Methodists most fail to understand about their coreligionists elsewhere. US Americans are used to having fairly few constraints on their actions, both as individuals, as a nation, and as a church in a nation with a strong tradition of separation of church and state. It is difficult for US Americans to understand the sorts of legal and social constraints on the UMC elsewhere, especially in settings where the UMC is a small and barely tolerated minority.

4. Getting material and financial help from other nations
This is the factor for which the comparison between nations and denominations seems the least apt. Nations give and receive a variety of material and financial aid between each other all the time. It is rare for denominations to directly aid one another. Instead, denominations more often behave like competitors than allies.

Nevertheless, one might imagine related denominations in the United States taking steps to aid ideologically similar fellow Christians in The United Methodist Church.

Perhaps this could take the form of full-communion mainline Protestant partners preparing to welcome progressive clergy and/or congregations leaving the UMC.

Perhaps this could take the form of Wesleyan/Holiness churches arranging to support departing traditionalist congregations or to use traditionalist para-denominational services (publishing, conferences, etc.) in a way that allows them to transition into services for a new traditionalist denomination.

Such forms of assistance seem to happen on an ad-hoc basis already, though no wide-spread initiatives currently exist. Thus, this form of assistance is not likely to significantly impact how the UMC addresses its current crisis.

The UMC and Jared Diamond’s Upheaval, Part 2: Recognizing the Crisis

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

Having laid out an assessment of the crisis that the UMC is facing, and having laid out the framework that Jared Diamond used in his book Upheaval to assess nation’s abilities to effectively resolve national crisis, I will now examine those factors (adapted for denominations instead of nations) as they apply to The United Methodist Church. I will look at the factors in a different order that Diamond listed them, grouping them instead into four related categories. This post will look at the first category:

Denominational Factors Related to Recognizing and Responding to the Crisis
First are a set of factors that relate to recognizing and responding to the crisis, answering the following questions: Is there a crisis? Why? Should the church respond? How extensive should that response be? Unless a denomination agrees that there is a crisis and that it should respond in some way, a crisis cannot be resolved. The identified reason and extent of a crisis are also key in shaping the resolution.

1. Denominational consensus that one’s denomination is in crisis
It might seem that the UMC does indeed have a consensus that the denomination is in crisis. Traditionalists, centrists, progressives, and liberationists in the United States all agree that there is a crisis and that the current state of the church cannot continue. Something must give.

Most Europeans, I think, would also agree that questions about the status of LGBTQ persons in the church and related questions about international polity and financing must be addressed, though perhaps with less of a sense that the future of the denomination depends upon this issue.

Yet it is not clear to me that United Methodists in the Philippines or especially Africa have the same sense of crisis in the UMC as United Methodists in the US and Europe do. Most African United Methodists have limited information about the UMC in the US and only experience debates about sexuality at the occasional general church meetings they may attend. Moreover, in many places in Africa, the church is growing rather than declining.

Thus, while top-level African leaders certainly are aware of the scope and magnitude of the crisis in the UMC, I do not think that sense of crisis goes much beyond the top level. For most African United Methodists, the crisis the UMC faces is actually about local political and economic conditions or competition with pentecostals.

Since Africans represent 30% of the votes at General Conference, this difference between Africans on the one hand and US Americans on the other over the extent and nature of a crisis in the UMC may significantly hinder the denomination’s ability to resolve the UMC’s crisis as I (as a US American) have defined it.

7. Honest denominational self-appraisal
Understandings of some aspects of the current crisis of the UMC are widely shared – there is little debate over the specifics of demographic trends in the US, financial trends globally, or specifics of what church polity says and how it is practiced (which are not the same). Most of this understanding is at the level of facts.

On a deeper level, there is little agreement amongst various factions within the United Methodist church about the underlying explanations for those facts, limiting the extent of honest denominational self-appraisal.

In particular, most of the narratives that the various parties (US traditionalists, US progressives, US centrists, Africans, etc.) attribute the crisis to the actions of other parties and downplay the actions of that group. Each group blames the other(s) for the crisis and is unwilling to honestly admit the role that they have had in creating or sustaining the crisis.

Furthermore, it seems to me that partisans on both sides of the US ideological spectrum tend to scapegoat the debate over LGBTQ persons in the church, making a successful solution to this conflict the key to addressing all other issues related to US membership and financial decline and to international decision making. This assumption seems unrealistic to me.

It also seems to me that some US United Methodists make unrealistic assumptions about their ability to continue to determine the terms of discussion in the UMC long-term, whereas some African United Methodists make unrealistic assumptions about the US ability to continue to subsidize ministry elsewhere long-term.

Thus, in some important ways, United Methodists are not honest with themselves about the reasons for their current crisis.

2. Acceptance of denominational responsibility to do something
Among those United Methodists who agree that the denomination is in crisis, it seems that all of them have accepted responsibility to resolve that crisis in some way, even if they are unwilling to accept responsibility for having caused it. American caucus groups such as Good News, UMC Next, the WCA, and UMForward; European annual and central conferences; and African and Filipino bishops have all made statements, put forth plans, or initiated processes to respond to the crisis of the church.

Yet to assume responsibility to do something without accepting responsibility for having had a role in causing the crisis is to set up one’s own group as the savior and all others, therefore, as the ones in need of saving. This undercuts the possibility of cooperation with others.

If anything is missing in terms of denominational responsibility to do something, it is a sense that for the denomination to do something, various groups must work together rather than independently. Much of the action that has happened to address the UMC’s crisis is action taken by specific groups by themselves and not in concert with others.

3. Building a fence, to delineate the denominational problems needing to be solved
At times, at least for US American United Methodists, the debate over the status of LGBTQ persons in the church can feel all-consuming. This debate, while primarily focused on the two questions of gay ordination and gay weddings, can seem to impact almost all other areas of the church. Indeed, if the church splits, most other areas of polity may be impacted.

Moreover, to the extent that US membership and financial decline impact all United Methodist institutions beyond the local church level, and many local churches themselves, it can also feel like there are no fences around this aspect of the crisis.

To the extent that these perceptions are true, this represents a failure to build a fence around the issues needing to be addressed.

Yet, it should be remembered that this sense of the all-pervasiveness of the crisis is primarily a US sense. United Methodists elsewhere have less of a sense that this crisis is all-consuming, requiring changes in all aspects of what it means to be a United Methodist. This is true even when they acknowledge that the crisis exists.

Moreover, looked at another way, there are key United Methodist practices and characteristics that are not impacted by our current crisis of the sexuality debate, global decision-making, and US membership and financial decline, even in the United States. While the long-term fate of some of these facets depends on what shape possible new denominations might take, things like a belief in connectionalism, an emphasis on free will and personal responsibility, and the practice of itineration are core features of United Methodism that are by and large not presently affected by the crisis.