Creating a Respectful and Fair Separation

Today’s post is a translation of Klaus Ulrich Ruof’s article “Trennung respektvoll und fair gestalten,” 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.

Three United Methodist bishops responsible for European Central Conferences wrote an open letter to the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA). The reason for the criticism voiced therein was the handling of the recent withdrawal of the Bulgaria-Romania Provisional Annual Conference from the UMC and the simultaneously declared joining in the founding of the Global Methodist Church (GMC).

Open letter criticizes WCA leadership
Christian Alsted, bishop for Northern Europe and the Baltics, Patrick Streiff, bishop for Central and Southern Europe, and Harald Rückert, bishop for Germany, criticize the behavior of the WCA leadership in the public letter.

The conservative lobby group, which is based in the United States and now active worldwide in the UMC, describes itself in its own words as a " global connection of local churches, laity, clergy, and regional chapters that seeks to partner with like-minded orthodox Christians to build a new global Methodist church." In line with its objectives, the WCA supports individuals, groups, congregations, and conferences in many places in their efforts to separate from The United Methodist Church.

The intended withdrawal of the Bulgaria-Romania Annual Conference had only been announced shortly before the conference session. Patrick Streiff, the presiding bishop for the conference, declared the request inadmissible in the form submitted because it disregarded the regulations laid down in the Book of Discipline of the UMC. The conference members did not want to wait for a clarification offered by the bishop through the Judicial Council, the highest judicial body of the UMC. Without the chairmanship of the presiding bishop, it was unanimously decided to withdraw from the UMC and to join the Global Methodist Church, effect on the founding date of the new church, announced for May 1 this year.

Against this background and given subsequent commentaries about the events by WCA and GMC leaders, the European bishops chose the unusually public form to express their criticism and disappointment: "We would have expected the Wesleyan Covenant Association and Good News to uphold the discipline and promote respectful ways of separation."

In view of the situation in which the worldwide UMC has found itself, especially since the special General Conference in February 2019, paths to the separation of the church are foreseeable. As bishops, they have therefore “established documents laying out the different decision-making processes on central conference, annual conference and local church level for separation.” As bishops, they are "committed to the United Methodist Church", but "equally" to those "who think differently." According to the three authors of the open letter, this attitude was even appreciatively described as "stellar leadership " in a blog post from Good News Magazine.

Separation: “fascinating” and “courageous”
From the perspective of the three European bishops, the leaders of the WCA and the emerging Global Methodist Church have in turn lacked respectful leadership behavior. Tom Lambrecht, UMC pastor from Wisconsin and vice president of Good News, who had highlighted the "stellar leadership" of the European bishops, commented on the departure of the Romanian and Bulgarian Methodists from the UMC as a "fascinating account". In a blog post, Chris Ritter, a member of the WCA council, described the "recent actions of the Bulgaria-Romania Conference" as a "spunky persistence of traditional, Methodist, Christian faith."

Respect and fairness
Such reactions, in the opinion of the European bishops, raise questions about the leadership behavior of the leaders of the Wesleyan Covenant Association and the Global Methodist Church. It is not about the fact of the separation per se, but about creating the ways to a respectful and fair separation. They want to still be committed to this goal, "even if we are disappointed by what we have experienced."

Judicial Council will clarify the case
In the meantime, the decision of the Bulgaria-Romania Provisions Annual Conference and its circumstances have been forwarded by Bishop Streiff to the Judicial Council for clarification of legal matters in accordance with the Book of Discipline.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where Are the Central Conferences in the WCA's New Denomination?

The Wesleyan Covenant Association last week released its draft Book of Doctrines and Disciplines, which provides the framework for a new denomination that the WCA expects will form out of the current turmoil in the UMC, either as a result of a split or as a way for individual departing congregations to regroup.

The WCA has stated that their preference is for a split along the lines of the Indianapolis Plan, which was endorsed by both the WCA leadership team and last weekend's Global Gathering. Under the terms of the Indianapolis Plan, the new denomination would include not only US Traditionalists, but also many from the central conferences, who become part of the new denomination by default.

The expectation that United Methodists from the central conferences will become part of this new denomination raises a fair question: What would the draft Book of Doctrines and Disciplines (D&D) mean for United Methodists in the central conferences?

First, a disclaimer: the D&D as released is a DRAFT. Significant sections, including one on conferences, are yet to be written. Existing sections may be significantly modified. Yet, despite this caveat, the draft D&D contains enough to have some sense of the implications for the central conferences.

Second, a note about authorship. The WCA stated that a 16-person team wrote the draft D&D, but they did not state who these 16 people were. 15% of the WCA Council is from the central conferences, and there have been people from the central conferences speaking at all WCA events. Yet, given the overwhelmingly American nature of both the Council and Global Gatherings, it is likely that the writing team for the D& was overwhelmingly American.

Moreover, the recent Global Gathering does not appear to have been streamed in any central conferences, so there appears to be limited involvement by the United Methodists from the central conferences in affirming the draft D&D.

However, if the central conferences except for Western Europe were to join the new denomination, along with, say, 25% of US membership, then Methodists from the central conferences would represent 75% of the membership of the new denomination.

Thus, there's already an issue in a (likely) largely US group making decisions that will impact a largely non-US group. That pattern is not confined to the WCA but is unfortunately all too common in the UMC as a whole.

Let's turn now to what the draft D&D says. I'll discuss four points:

1. Central conferences and episcopal areas, as they are now, cease to exist.
The draft D&D refers only to annual conferences and regional conferences. Regional conferences are primarily about overseeing shared ministry. They do not have the power to elect bishops or adapt the D&D, and thus are significantly different from central conferences, as they currently stand. Moreover, the draft D&D envisions bishops serving a single annual conference, not episcopal areas of more than one annual conference. This leads to my second observation:

2. Ending episcopal areas would force a massive reorganization of the central conferences.
Currently, in many places outside the US, bishops serve multiple annual conferences. Requiring each annual conference to have its own bishop would either result in many more bishops or many fewer annual conferences outside the US, or both. To cite just one instance, would the 2,000 United Methodists in Poland get their own bishop, or would they become a district of some transnational annual conference?

In whatever way such questions are answered, this new denomination would require a massive reorganization of current UMC central conference structures. Any such reorganization is likely to have significant economic, legal, and church political implications.

3. There is not currently any indication that people outside the US will be able to adapt the D&D.
When the section on Conferences is written, this power may be given to annual conferences outside the US, but currently the draft D&D makes no provision for adaptation by context.

This raises at very least some legal and logistical questions. The draft D&D includes extensive rules around trusteeship. Will these rules meet the legal requirements for all countries in which this new denomination would function? The draft D&D requires an online database of all pastors and open appointments. Will this apply to remote congregations in the DRC as well?

In general, the draft D&D seems to repeatedly presume a US context of formal organizational rules and procedures, easy printing enabling frequent use of forms and paperwork, and easy internet access. These conditions do not exist in many parts of the UMC around the world.

4. Bishops are significantly weakened in the new denomination.
Under the draft D&D, bishops are term-limited to twelve years. They also have curtailed powers, including a hybrid call/confirmation system for pairing clergy with congregations instead of the current appointment process.

Bishops, especially in Africa, are currently positions of great power and usually great respect. Bishops in Africa serve for life after winning 1-2 elections. They frequently have the power to appoint not just clergy, but leading laity as well.

Thus, the proposed reduction in the powers of the bishop would go over much differently in Africa than in the anti-institutional, anti-bureaucracy culture of the United States. Of course, views will differ among Africans, and Filipinos and Europeans will have still other views, but this change is not likely to be as welcome in the central conferences as in the US.

In short, the draft Book of Doctrines and Disciplines struck me as overwhelmingly US-centric and often unaware of the consequences its proposed changes would have for the central conferences.

This raises an open question: Does this proposal mark the end of the road for the coalition between US Traditionalists and United Methodists from the central conferences, especially Africa?

That coalition has been founded on mutual opposition to homosexuality. But we've seen with the African bishops' statement opposing a split and opposing plans written without central conference input, that the interests of US Traditionalists and Africans are sometimes opposed to one another.

US Traditionalists may find that joint opposition to homosexuality is not enough to incentivize most Africans and Filipinos to follow them into a new denomination that would make radical changes to the church in their lands, changes that they had, at most, a minor role in determining.

The African bishops' statement said, "We cannot allow a split to further reduce us to second-class citizens in a church that only needs us when they want our votes. As Africans, we have the right of self-determination and we have the right to speak for ourselves and determine who we want to be." Whatever the future of the UMC in the US, Africa, and elsewhere, we should take Africans at their word when they speak of self-determination.

Europeans Give More to Central Conferences Than the WCA

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.

Over the past two months, I have done a series of posts on the amount of US financial support for central conferences, central conference internal giving, and the impact of American money on the future of The United Methodist Church as a global denomination. It has been my main intention to provide facts and context for the difficult conversations that are taking place about the future of the UMC as an international body.

One area I did not explore in that series was the money that European United Methodists – primarily those from Germany, Switzerland, and Norway – give to mission and other ministries in other central conferences. Yet those figures are relatively easy to gather, so this post will do that, along with suggesting some comparisons between various funding figures and what these funding relationships mean for discussions of the future of the denomination.

First, to the amount given by Europeans. I’ll look at each of the three European mission boards, starting with Connexio, the mission board of Swiss United Methodists. Connexio has a useful annual report which details how much it spends in various geographic areas. In 2018, that amounted to 921,156 Swiss Francs in Eastern Europe and 407,756 CHF in Africa, mostly in the DRC. The total is thus 1,328,912 CHF, which converts to about $1,360,000 USD in 2018 to the central conferences. It should be noted that Connexio also gives to the UMC’s Cambodia mission and mission work in other countries not part of the UMC central conferences.

Germany’s EmK Weltmission has a project list for each of the countries in which it works, with 2019 commitments of support for each project. It is not entirely clear whether these figures represent firm commitments or fundraising goals; nevertheless, they provide an indicator of support in lieu of an easily-procured financial statement. For work in Eastern Europe, Weltmission has committed 58,000 Euros in 2019. For work in Africa, it has committed €603,900. Thus, the total to UMC central conferences is €661,900, or about $740,000 USD. As with Connexio, Weltmission supports additional mission work in countries other than the UMC central conferences.

Norway’s Misjonsselskap has work in four countries: Liberia, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, and Lithuania. According to the yearly audit submitted to this year’s Annual Conference, Misjonsselskapet spent 10,852,086 Norwegian Kroner on projects in 2018, about 80% of which was underwritten by government support. That works out to about $1,220,000 USD. The report does not make clear the division between Lithuania and the three African countries, but it is clear from Misjonsskelskapet’s website that the vast majority of the support goes to Africa.

Adding the three totals together, one gets about $3,320,000 USD yearly in support for the central conferences from the three European United Methodist mission societies. As both the Germany and Norwegian mission agency sites make clear, individuals and congregations give additional funds directly to partners in the central conferences, but this $3.3 million is the total through the mission boards.

On the one hand, this $3 .3 million is less than a tenth of the approximately $40 million that flows from the US-dominated boards, agencies, and apportionment funds.

On the other hand, this $3.3 million yearly is over ten times as much as the WCA fund for “threatened global ministries” in the central conferences.

The comparison with the WCA fund is particularly informative. Certainly, the official WCA fund does not represent all giving by WCA-affiliated individuals and congregations, which is undoubtedly much larger. Neither do the European figures, as noted. Even if we attribute 5% of US direct congregational and individual giving to the central conferences to WCA-related individuals (who make up about 1-2% of membership, so this is a very generous estimate), total WCA giving (which might then be $2.3 million) would still likely be less than half of what is given by European United Methodists by mission societies, individuals, and congregations (which might be as high as $6 million, assuming individual and congregational giving equals non-government supported mission society giving, as in the US).

My point here is not that Europeans should get more influence in the denomination than the WCA because they give more to the central conferences. I think it is dangerous to directly equate money with voice in shaping the church. Such an approach privileges the rich at the expense of the poor, and thus this principle would serve African United Methodists poorly, although they certainly have voices worth listening to.

The conclusion I would like to draw instead is the difficulty in re-creating or simply patching the existing on-going financial relationships that currently exist through The United Methodist Church. The WCA’s offer to save endangered central conference ministries may sound great, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money funneled through official channels, certainly from the US, but even from Europe. Moreover, there is no indication that the WCA’s fund will include $300,000 every year. All descriptions thus far have made this fund seem like a one-time collection.

It is clear that financial relationships in The United Methodist Church will need to change both as a result of the internal tensions that will reshape the entire church and as a result of changing membership demographics. But to do so in a way that avoids harm as much as possible, we as a denomination must be willing to discuss those changes in a clear-eyed way based upon realistic assessment of the size of the financial commitments that are at risk. To do anything else would be dishonest and a disservice to the poorest and most vulnerable with whom we are in mission.