Robert J. Harman: Evangelical Church Disciplines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Harman: The United Methodist Church and Resisting Political Oppression

Today's post is by Robert J. Harman. Rev. Harman is a mission executive retired from the General Board of Global Ministries. It is a response to David Scott’s recent post, “The United Methodist Church and Declining Democracy.”

David Scott recently wrote a blog post raising the question of how declining democracy and increasing authoritarianism will impact The United Methodist Church. Robert Hunt replied in a comment that, while that is a good question, “an equally good question is whether Methodists make any impact in opposing authoritarian regimes and promoting democracy.”

Dr. Hunt suggested that “most Methodist leaders and their followers are either disengaged from politics or are actually comfortable with authoritarian leaders - so long as they don't directly impact Methodist life.” I am sad to say that I agree with Dr. Hunt's assumption that church leaders today are probably fine with trends toward authoritarian governments as long as they continue to benefit or refrain from much interference with religious practices or services.

There were, however, moments in United Methodist Church history when the opposite was true—when Methodists worked to oppose political domination and on behalf of freedom. The era of decolonization was just such an era.

Liberation movements in the late colonial period were supported and even led by church leaders in their struggle to define and realize self-determining rule as their post-colonial reality. There was not great confidence in democracy as the antidote to colonialism, given the history of collaboration between democracies and colonial authorities. Instead, independence movements looked to indigenous sources for inspired leaders and found some in mission-established churches such as the UMC that had successful educational programs to produce them.

In Mozambique, Methodist-educated Eduardo Chivambo Mondlane became the first black Mozambican of his generation to enroll at the University of Lisbon, where he collaborated with other African students involved in the formation of national liberation movements. He was the founder and first president of the Front for the Liberation of Mozambique (FRELIMO), the political and military movement that was eventually successful in deposing the Portuguese dictator Salazar and establishing the first post-colonial government in Mozambique.

The UMC experienced opportunities for cooperation with the new Mozambican government, benefiting their educational and social outreach programs. The indebtedness to the Methodist Mondlane, who fell to an assassin, has often been recognized on ceremonial occasions when country United Methodist leaders and government officials have shared the same public platforms.

In Angola, Dr. Agoutino Neto, medical doctor, son of a United Methodist pastor, and a former Crusade Scholar like Mondlane, became head of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola. He had a profound vision for a self-determining alternative to Portuguese control and worked to implant it village by village, a process in which countless United Methodists gave leadership, sometimes resulting in death and imprisonment. Along with Neto's imprisonment was that of the Reverend Emilio de Carvalho, the first indigenous bishop of the UMC in Angola. MPLA became and remains the ruling party today in spite of protracted civil and insurgent challenges reflecting Cold War political interests in the region.

The governments of neither country today rank high on the scale of democratic influence, though they are trending in that direction with each passing decade. But it is their movement away from the controlling colonial authority through leadership which arose from the ranks of church leaders and members who sacrificed their lives for a new and hopeful futures for their people that is worthy of remembrance as we look at current trends in patterns of governance that may seem discouraging.

Will this history find recurrence in critical contexts where the UMC is engaged? One would hope that the activity within the denomination's base in the United States would provide some signs of awakening to the drift into nationalism. If the charism of a church leader is required, we should be praying for return of the likes of Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam who was a militant against political repression in the Red Scare period of the late 40s and 50s.

But the current trend toward authoritarianism is embraced and successfully led by evangelical groups that harbor no shame in endorsing self-benefitting political strategies rather than advocating for or protecting the goodwill of all the governed. They have yet to be challenged by mainstream churches that bear the Oxnam legacy but choose silence. Will United Methodists remain silent in the face of such a slide towards authoritarianism?

Robert J. Harman: The Current State of Church and State

Today's post is by Robert J. Harman. Rev. Harman is a mission executive retired from the General Board of Global Ministries.

Many in the churches have been watching the grueling efforts in the US Congress to reach a compromise on a second installment of a stimulus bill so very much needed by segments of the population still reeling from the impact of COVID-19. Those who benefitted from the large amounts of funding available to churches in the rollout of the CARES Act Payroll Protection Program may have a special interest in whether a similar provision will be available in any new funding package.

Analysts found that churches benefitted from over $5 billion in the first installment, of which participating United Methodists took in $500 million, much more than the quadrennial budget of the entire denomination. That bonanza occurred without any evidence of a formal consideration of the appropriateness of the legislation ignoring historic standards for honoring the doctrine of separation of church and state. (See my previous article on this topic here.)

In light of those historic standards, is it reasonable to assume that United Methodist church leaders might yet be nudged into a new stance discouraging the acceptance of new government funds? Might United Methodists come out in support of the constitutional separation that assures citizen taxpayers that government funds will not be used to support religion? I hope so, because the silence and accommodation of the churches is having a devastating effect upon the performance of the Supreme Court on church and state cases.

In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, legal columnist Linda Greenhouse ponders the direction of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, even before its hold on the court was cemented by the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Greenhouse suggests the court is catering to religious liberty voices within a growing constituency, which she identifies as grievance conservatives. Their influence upon the court has risen by claiming to be an overlooked, silent majority that has been treated unfairly in a system that is rigged against them. When religious liberty cases cite the cause of their grievances as “overreach of liberal government policies,” a partisan political agenda is advanced.

Their legal philosophy argues that the historic doctrine of separation of church and state actually discriminates against the right of religious-based organizations to participate equally in the benefits of government resources and programs, and its strict observance denies recognition of legal protection to individual religionists in practicing their faith.

At the outset, the founders saw the protection of free exercise of religion as a guarantee of freedom from the oppressive state-controlled churches and religious life from which so many citizens had fled to settle in America. Government would not interfere with individual or communal acts of devotion associated with the doctrines or traditions of faith communities. Further, because they were products of the Enlightenment, the founders believed their experiment in democratic rule required designing a secular state. Thus, Thomas Jefferson could declare in a letter to a Baptist association that his first amendment non-establishment clause would be a “wall of separation between church and state.”

Recent religious liberty decisions of the high court have been fraught with unsavory implications that the founders sought to avoid by enshrining the non-establishment clause. In her NYT opinion piece, Greenhouse illustrates how several cases infringing upon the separation principle produced collateral damage to other well-established rights.

In a case challenging a state subsidy for private-school tuition, the court ruled that funding must include parochial schools in the program. It ruled that religious organizations may exclude a substantial category of employees from the protections of federal civil rights laws under a “ministerial exception” that goes well beyond members of the ministry. It found that employers with religious or even vague “moral” objections to contraception can opt out of the federal requirement to include birth control in their employee health plan coverage. These cases found their precedence in more publicized Supreme Court cases such as Hobby Lobby, Masterpiece Cakeshop, and Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Missouri—all cases in which persons / organizations with religious claims were all granted anti-discrimination protections.

The court’s decisions are celebrated by religious liberty activists but are questioned as discriminatory by advocates of church-state separation, organized labor, women’s health, public education, civil rights, and LGBTQ rights, who are all concerned that religious exemptions will deprive their constituents of constitutional rights and equal access to vital services.

Only a firm endorsement of the separation doctrine will place all matters that have potential for endorsement of religion beyond the purview of the court. Jefferson’s promise should offer a foundational legal principle for churches today, as conservative advocates focusing their grievance arguments on alleged violations of the free exercise clause find sympathetic jurists willing to define what is and what is not authentic religious belief and practice. Can judges accurately read the heart of a plaintive to ascertain the true foundation of faith s/he represents in a legal claim? Or can a judicial body arrive at an appropriate remedy for alleged social damages in a case-by-case review of alleged infractions of individuals’ freedom of religion?

Churches should be found among the more active court watchers and legal advocates with standing in cases that exploit religious liberty for individual / corporate advantage or political gain. While grievance conservatives can find safe harbor in well-financed conservative legal societies/lobbies like the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, they must no longer take comfort in silence from ecumenical and mainline churches. The free exercise and non-establishment clauses deserve the defense of communities of faith that understand these principles to be part and parcel of the common good and defend justice for all.

Unfortunately, the current silence of the churches may have been bought and paid for by the billions of dollars they received through participation in the PPP funding.

The conservative legal argument that established the victories for the religious right cited above prevailed in the legislation enabling churches to apply for loans/grants during the hardship experienced in the initial phase of the COVID pandemic. If receipt of these funds leads to ecumenical and mainline silence on issues of separation of church and state, conservatives will have won a double victory.

Churches must re-assert the separation principle that provision of taxpayer funds for direct support of those in preparation for, or engaged in, the teaching and preaching of religious doctrine is an arbitrary violation of the non-establishment clause.

This complacency of churches is especially egregious because it is happening at a critical moment in history. The rise in the United States of nationalist behavior behind the America First political theme is being hailed by autocratic leaders worldwide and undermining trust in democracy at home. Must we recall the tragic history of how populism begets authoritarian rule when conspiring with representatives of state-sanctioned religion?

The religious right’s successful embrace of religious liberty causes and its growing favoritism among conservatives in the judiciary must be countered before it assumes by default the mantle of establishment. It is late, but hopefully not too late for an urgent correction.

Robert Harman: Lowering the Wall of Separation - The UMC Response to the Paycheck Protection Program

Today's post is by Robert J. Harman. Rev. Harman is a mission executive retired from the General Board of Global Ministries.

The wall of separation between church and state was lowered this year in a significant way. The CARES Act and the Paycheck Protection Program administered by the Small Businesses Administration made sizable loans/grants available to religious organizations to bridge anticipated shortfalls in revenue from the collapse of the pandemic economy.

 

The General Council on Finance and Administration gave the green light to broad church participation in this program aimed at alleviating a crisis, and the UMC took advantage of the opportunity big time. According to UMNS, 751 United Methodist entities, including churches, annual conferences, seminaries, episcopal offices, and general agencies, have received $0.5 billion.

 

Pragmatically speaking, United Methodists should take satisfaction in the promised results of a program aimed at alleviating the loss of key salaried personnel and preserving program continuity in this time of severe economic crisis.

 

But where is the evidence of dialogue within the communion about the wisdom of accepting this historic diversion from the separation of church and state by accepting government funds for the performance of strictly religious functions? Despite the GCFA go-ahead, there was no General Conference approval or international conversation. Yet the paucity of dissent on this issue suggests the UMC is OK with this latest manifestation of the trend in policies lowering the wall between church and state.

 

While the PPP episode offers evidence that enforcement of the separation principle has gone the same direction as Sunday blue laws, there are additional issues of policy, polity, practice, politics, and ethics deserving of examination.

 

First, the impact of this program is short lived, with an effective life of only eight weeks. What are the church’s plans for longer-term survival, personnel retention, and institutional continuity after federal intervention? The economic challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic will persist for a long time. Yet to be answered is what long-term impacts upon the voluntary stewardship of the church’s membership lie ahead.

 

Second, association with government policies and programs assures a higher level of interest and controversy. Such scrutiny is becoming apparent as public media focuses upon some of the unflattering aspects of the PPP legislation and its approval process. We learn now that Roman Catholic Church lobbyists were unleashed to ensure church inclusion in the PPP legislation. Catholic churches have hauled in over $3 billion already, many in dioceses that have chosen bankruptcy to avoid funding, or have already found sufficient reserves to fund millions of dollars of obligations in sexual abuse cases. What other mixed motives for engaging in the PPP will be disclosed?

 

Scrutiny of the use of government funds is always arbitrary as well as public. Auditors will be hard at work analyzing grants and interviewing recipients for possible non-compliance. Among the early publicized findings in the Washington Post is the unexplained discrepancy in the proposal made by Trinity Episcopal Church in Houston for receiving PPP funds to secure 500 jobs, when the church roster lists a staff of only twelve. Some issues of local animus are also likely to surface, such as taxpayer grievances pointing to churches’ enjoyment of tax-free properties and revenues while competing with highly taxed small businesses for PPP dollars. There is no denial of a legitimate fairness issue here.

 

Third, in the current context of stark partisan political division, the impact of the promotion of PPP deserves special consideration in this election year. In their PPP press release, President Trump and Vice President Pence did not miss the opportunity to appeal directly to their ardent religious supporters and the vocal advocates for government funding of religion among their political base by taking credit for the successful inclusion of church participation in PPP. Will participation risk being interpreted as endorsement?

 

The political agenda of the evangelical right wants unfettered access to federal funds for their programs and agencies without regard to, or in defiance of, the implications for the establishment clause of the first amendment to the constitution. Their success in litigating cases in the courts has resulted from a polished legal argument that redefines the right to religious liberty as not only a protection from government interference but a robust defense of a right to equal access to government resources by religious groups. That rationale, however, includes a self-serving waiver from the enforcement of federal regulations guaranteeing non-discriminatory employment opportunities, a policy of inclusion that many evangelical groups aggressively resist on religious grounds. Both equal access to money and waivers from non-discrimination are found in the Paycheck Protection Program legislation. United Methodists have historically supported non-discrimination policies. Will accepting PPP funds be seen as dropping those objections?

 

Finally, there are issues of precedence and consistency within the global UMC. Global Ministries missionary personnel policies prohibit contracts with government agencies. History offers well-documented evidence of the Central Intelligent Agency soliciting missionary assistance to access high-priority intelligence for the US Government’s subversive purposes. That abuse was addressed by General Conference legislation writing admonishments into the Book of Discipline. Nor is that the only place in which United Methodist polity supports the separation of church and state. Should this experience of lowering the wall of separation prompt a change in the statement on religious liberty in the Social Principles that resists government dominance over religion and vice versa?

 

The financial policies for managing and protecting United Methodist mission funds prohibit the co-mingling of church and government monies when program support requires government assistance. Welcoming applications for government PPP funds in the spontaneity of a crisis moment without precaution sends mixed policy messages to our global partners in mission. Their service is too often rendered under conditions of unrelenting hardship, often in contexts of political instability where the absence of due diligence risks exposure to consequences that can include physical harm. Solidarity in a global partnership between churches always requires a critical appraisal of governmental interventions to assure a continuing and effective witness.

 

In conclusion, opening the church door to government funding of a basic function like salaries can only compromise the integrity of the church and mute a valid prophetic voice on other questionable government policies and practices.

 

The only option left to the fading voices of support for the separation of church and state is to appeal to those remaining conscience-stricken entities within the UMC to return the moneys received under PPP terms. Then we as a denomination need to have a full discussion of the pros and cons of the issue in policy-making arenas that reflect the global nature of the church and protect the integrity of the whole body.

Robert Harman: Response to “When It Comes to Geography, Mission Trumps Polity”

Today's post is by Robert J. Harman. Rev. Harman is a mission executive retired from the General Board of Global Ministries.

David Scott’s post earlier this week discussed the spread of Zimbabwean United Methodist congregations outside of Zimbabwe. The phenomenon of emerging churches sharing the gospel across cultural, ecclesiastical and national boundaries has been well established in recent years.

But questions persist. Just how secure is this venture in extending the global witness of the church? Will the forces of globalization that drive this trend survive the current resurgence of nationalism? How will the adoption of the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation impact the structural configuration and support systems needed to nurture this pattern of United Methodist witness? Can the UMC learn from mistakes of the past how to gracefully appropriate this trend?

The time has long passed since the Methodist Church charged its mission board with authorizing the origins of this kind of missionary activity by certifying the credentials of ministers sent from conferences beyond the US to serve appointments within the US conferences of the denomination.

Soon the migration of people called Methodist from churches beyond the jurisdiction of the missionaries of the board of missions began populating neighborhoods beyond the reach of existing Methodist congregations and presented a whole new reality for which disciplinary provisions were never written. But the notion that this activity could be regulated by recognizing clergy credentials of those sent by Methodist bodies beyond the US is what receiving conferences in the US-based UMC held onto for dear life.

The first serious challenge came from the Korean Methodist Church, whose pastors accompanied their migrating members to the US and established congregations with or without the blessing of either the KMC or UMC. Fearing ultimate financial liability for supporting the arriving KMC pastors, conferences established strict membership criteria for expat clergy including educational achievement that matched standards in place for existing clergy members, English language skills, and for their churches, an arbitrary sustainable congregational size and organizational structure that complied with the UMC discipline, not the KMC discipline.

Some of the Korean ministers played by these rules and brought their churches into UMC annual conference membership. Only when superintendents made their charge conference rounds did they discover that the first-generation Korean United Methodist Churches were United Methodist in name only. Their strong ties to the KMC were evident in their parish organizational structure and cultural support, while their linkage to other churches in their districts were non-existent.

Moreover, many immigrant Methodist pastors and congregations chose to remain independent of the UMC and establish a mission relationship to their homeland sending church bodies. This was true for fledgling groups from Korea, Japan, China, the Caribbean, Africa and Latin America. A similar pattern prevailed in European conferences, which generally promoted a fraternal relationship that respected mutual independence before cultivating direct connectional ties.

In most major urban population centers this pattern prevails. Immigrant congregations have distinct cultural needs that require nurturing by leadership from within the culture and connected to the denominational support systems that will maintain their identity and keep them viable throughout a first generational transition. Not until a second generation of members and clergy begin to influence congregational life will consideration of external affairs / relationships become evident.  Still, the threat from outside the established community, whether from geographically based-judicatory appeals or adherents attracted by virtual forms of communication, will be controlled from within.

So, Methodism today has a multivariate formation within its global community that defies traditional analysis by ecclesiastical, national and cultural standards. We sometimes write off that which is unmanageable with the jargon “mission is messy.” But it is truly beautiful and a blessing when church bodies can cultivate rather than insist on capturing each expression of culturally distinct faith communities that surfaces in our respective domains.

That admonition is especially directed toward factions within the UMC that will soon be faced with the challenge of sorting out which branches will claim each other going forward from the proposed separation protocol. I pray that a new global vision of church will prevail and a threatened Balkanization of the emerging expressions of Methodism can be avoided.

Recommended Reading: Robert Harman on EUB vs. Methodist World Mission

Several years ago, Robert Harman, retired head of the World Division of Global Ministries and occasional contributor to and regular commenter on UM & Global, wrote a piece on the differences between EUB and Methodist traditions of world mission. The piece, entitled "Reflections on World Mission in the EUB, Methodist, and United Methodist Traditions," ran as the Summer 2012 issue of the Telescope-Messenger, the newsletter for the Center for the Evangelical United Brethren Heritage.

While the piece touches on several differences between the Methodist and EUB traditions, much of it describes the differences between how the two traditions thought about the relationship between their missions and the church in the US. This set of differences has implications for how autonomy, connection, and dependence played out in the former missions of each tradition. Harman also argues it has implications for how we think about The United Methodist Church as a global body. The piece is worth reading, even several years later, as the UMC reconsiders its global nature, especially if autonomy for some parts of the church becomes a part of the answer to current questions.

Robert Harman: Historical Context for Affiliated Autonomous Methodist Churches and their Standing in a Global United Methodist Church

Today's post is by Robert J. Harman. Rev. Harman is a mission executive retired from the General Board of Global Ministries.

In a previous post, Dr. Philip Wingeier raised significant issues underlying the claim of the UMC to its global status and some programmatic implications for affiliated autonomous partner churches, especially those in Latin America.  A rehearsal of the historical context of their origins underscores the intentionality of their independence and illumines what was lost and gained in the process for these partner churches and a "global" UMC.

At the 1968 General Conference that celebrated the union of the EUB Church and the Methodist Church, a process unfolded that eventuated in all of the churches (conferences) remaining in connection with the former Methodist Church in Latin America and Asia (The Philippines being the only exception) gaining their autonomy.  Former EUB Church relationships with mission bodies abroad (except Germany and Sierra Leone) were mostly independent united churches and planned to remain autonomous after the formation of the new United Methodist Church. So, the UMC was left with a much diminished global reach with no denominational presence in Latin America, minimal memberships in populous Asia and small conferences in Europe.

Dr. Wingeier (and others) have suggested that the Methodist churches in Latin America were "encouraged" or influenced by the denomination to choose structural independence from the emerging UMC, a position I fail to find documented in the proceedings I have researched.  Both Mexico and Brazil Methodist Churches achieved their autonomy by forcing the creation of a special commission of their parent bodies (Methodist Churches North and South) to successfully advocate devolution at their respective General Conferences in 1930.  At a consultation held in Green Lake Wisconsin in 1966, leaders from all churches in the world wide Methodist connection plus representatives of the EUB Mission board offered their thoughts about the future of the denominational structure and mission.  The revolutionary changes occurring in the post colonial period impacting governments and social institutions in affected countries were strongly impacting the churches.  Most presentations offered by church representatives themselves vigorously concluded that historical linkages suggesting any continuation of colonial patterns of dependency had to be jettisoned.  The Commission on the Status on Methodism Overseas (COSMOS), the consultation host, only then agreed to engage in a follow up process that permitted regional conversations resulting in proposals for autonomy to be submitted to the 1968 General Conference. 

To each of the follow up regional consultations, COSMOS offered three options: continuation in Central Conferences, Autonomy as independent Methodist churches with affiliated relationships to the UMC, and Autonomy within newly created regional bodies that would also convene periodically as a world wide connectional body.  In my reading of the documentation from the Latin American churches, it was the third option that interested them.  The Asian churches favored Autonomy and some preferred exploring union with other Protestant churches to strengthen their witness nationally.  Within Asia only the Philippine conferences chose continuation in a Central Conference.  African leaders pleading greater self determination chose continuation in Central Conference structures.  European conferences also chose continuation in Central Conferences.

Latin American Methodist church leaders today rightly maintain that they did not leave the connection, but that the connection left them.  They chose the one option that would have created new and potentially vibrant linkages regionally and globally for a connectional Methodism, but that vision soon faded.  While the 1972 General Conference approved funding for a global consultation in Atlantic City in 1973 to pursue further discussion of this option and other scenarios for a new globally representative structure for UM originated world church bodies, participants were either tired or wary of the outcome from more energy and funding invested in this conversation.  They agreed only to strengthening their commitment to the World Methodist Council where an even larger representation of Methodists with various histories of origin meet periodically.

This explains how the UMC today inherited its reduced global nature and - to some extent - how the newly independent Methodist bodies in Latin America and Asia unfortunately became disconnected satellite entities.  It may also suggest why some affiliated autonomous church partners like those in Latin America often feel bereft of the fraternity a global fellowship like meetings of the UM General Conference should offer.  Membership has its privileges so a General Conference will always grant favors to its Central Conference members that its autonomous partners, invited as guests (voice without vote), don't experience.  But those partners share strong values and offer important venues for significant mission involvement that general agencies, conferences and church mission teams support through project funding and networking.  Many challenges remain to be addressed through greater cooperation and that can happen in Latin America because independent self-determining Methodist churches have created an effective regional structure (CIEMAL) for mutual support and advocacy within and beyond Latin America.  Like the larger UMC itself, individual Latin American and other autonomous Methodist churches also benefit from membership, representation and direct participation in the World Council of Churches. 

Today one cannot be too sanguine about the UMC's potential for reconsidering its compromised standing as a global church, but the best option remains a variation of that the Latin American churches hoped the winds of change in the 1960's would have delivered, I.e. locally/nationally autonomous (and accountable) church bodies where the focus and strength of a relevant cultural witness take precedence, but also united in regional organizations connected to a global structure offering a periodic reflection, outlook and vision for what churches of the Methodist tradition are called to realize in the contemporary world setting.