What now? African disaffiliation

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. It is the second in a series examining issues in The United Methodist Church following the further postponement of General Conference to 2024. 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, the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation is, at best, on hold for another two years and, at worst, a dead proposal. Therefore, Traditionalists have announced that they intend to proceed with the launch of the new Global Methodist Church on May 1st, thus beginning the process of forming that new denomination.

The Protocol would have allowed not just individual churches but entire annual conferences to transfer into the Global Methodist Church. Without the Protocol, Traditionalists are focusing (for now) on encouraging individual churches to make plans to join the new denomination. The plan is for United Methodist congregations to use ¶2548.2 of the Book of Discipline, which allows for transfer of congregations into “another evangelical denomination,” in this case, the Global Methodist Church.

However, as the Council of Bishops’ recent request for a declaratory decision from the Judicial Council shows, there is still interest in entire annual conference departing The United Methodist Church. The Judicial Council has agreed to hear this request.

Four out of the six questions that the bishops asked the Judicial Council focused on annual conferences in the United States, where it is unclear whether whole annual conferences can leave by any means. Question 2 asked about annual conferences outside the United States where, as the question acknowledged, there are disciplinary provisions for annual conferences to leave the UMC. As the request thus highlights, this is an area in which important differences exist between the church in the United States and the church elsewhere.

This is significant because, while a lot of the focus in US conversations has been on Traditionalists in the United States leaving the church, various Traditionalist leaders outside the United States, especially in Africa, have expressed their intention to join the new Global Methodist Church. (This applies as well to some United Methodists in Eastern Europe, though I will explore the situation in Europe in a subsequent article.) As indicated by the very name “Global Methodist Church,” including Methodists from around the world has been important, at very least rhetorically, for Traditionalist leaders, even as the plans for the new denomination have at times presumed an American context.

For Traditionalist-aligned United Methodists in Africa, there are significant advantages to joining the Global Methodist Church as entire annual conferences, not as individual congregations. Annual conference-wide decisions better reflect more collectivist cultural traditions, the greater power of African bishops relative to US bishops, and the administrative challenges of collecting and communicating church-by-church decisions in rural areas with limited infrastructure.

Annual conference wide decisions would also allow African United Methodists to retain control of schools, clinics, and other institutions which are an important part of the United Methodist brand in Africa. Such institutions sometimes already struggle financially; legal and financial battles for control over them could cause them to founder.

Thus, the COB’s question about the departure of annual conferences in the central conferences is significant for the future of United Methodists in Africa.

Question 2 references ¶572 of the Book of Discipline. As previously detailed on this blog, that paragraph allows annual conferences outside the United States to request autonomy in a four-step process:

1. The Central Conference containing the departing part of the church (the entire central conference or just one annual conference therein) must approve autonomy.

2. That decision must be ratified by a 2/3 or greater majority of all votes at all annual conferences within the central conference in question.

3. The departing conference must work with the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters to develop a statement on why they’re choosing autonomy and mutually agree on a statement of faith and a constitution for the new church.

4. General Conference, on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, must vote by simple majority to grant an enabling act that bestows autonomy.

Once an annual conference from the central conferences had become autonomous by following these steps, presumably it could then negotiate with the Global Methodist Church to join that denomination.

The process outlined above is a lengthy one that involves decisions by annual conferences, the Central Conference, the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, and the General Conference. Thus, the earliest a portion of the UMC in Africa could leave under these provisions is in 2024 after the next meeting of the General Conference, and that presumes that the relevant central conference and the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters would have met previously, which is not guaranteed. Disaffiliation under ¶572 would be a slow process lasting 2-7 years.

Therefore, the bishops have asked whether the provisions of ¶572 must be “viewed as minimum standards” for the depart of an annual conference outside the United States. In other words, does an annual conference outside the United States that wishes to leave the UMC and join the Global Methodist Church have to follow the rules of ¶572 to do so, or is there a quicker and easier way for them to depart?

The Judicial Council’s answer to this question will have significant implications for many. It will, of course, impact those African branches of the church seeking to leave. It will impact the Global Methodist Church as it figures out how to constitute itself so as to live into the first word in its name. And it will impact the remaining United Methodist Church, as the presence or absence of African Traditionalists at General Conference 2024 (and possibly 2028) will greatly affect the shape of discussions at that event.

Darryl W. Stephens: Considering the Dissolution of the UMC

Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Darryl W. Stephens. Dr. Stephens is director of United Methodist studies at Lancaster Theological Seminary and a clergy member of the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference. The post first appeared on the author's personal website, Ethics Considered. It is republished here with permission.

dis·so·lu·tion /ˌdisəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/ noun. 1. the closing down or dismissal of an assembly, partnership, or official body.

In a previous post, I explored the possibility that General Conference might not ever meet again. I am not the first to raise this possibility. Indeed, more than a few other church leaders and scholars have called for the dissolution of The United Methodist Church (UMC). However, my discussion dissolution of the denomination differs in an important way from previous proposals: rather than construct and prescribe future connectional relationships through protocols and agreements, I believe new relationships can emerge organically if we allow them.

The possibility of new beginnings requires an end to what was. There are many reasons for the divisions currently tearing the UMC apart, not the least of which have to do with a white, US, imperialistic mindset. The denominational structure has become an obstacle to our ecclesiology, a hinderance rather than an enabler of connectional relationships.

I am not the first or the only one to reach this conclusion or something similar. In March 2017, Professor Mark Teasdale recommended “dissolving United Methodism as a denomination”—but he lost our ecclesiology by proposing every congregation become independent. More recently, Professor Tom Frank also advocated for terminating “a global denomination with common governance” in favor of “mov[ing] authority for ministry closer to where it is practiced”—albeit through a US denominational structure. My consideration of dissolution differs from Teasedale’s congregationalism and Frank’s US-denominationalism by suggesting the annual conference, “the basic body of the Church,” be the largest institutional entity.

Envisioning the dissolution of the UMC is not a call for ecclesial anarchy or the end of connectional relationships. Rather, this path forward can maintain the essence of what our clergy and laity recognize as the United Methodist way of being church. I am in agreement with Bishop Bob Farr, who declared, “It is time to find a way for The United Methodist Church to separate.” He suggested, along the lines of what I am discussing, “convert[ing] all [annual] conferences into affiliated autonomous conferences.” Likewise, Amy Valdez Barker, former top executive of the Connectional Table, argued for “a connection based on relationships” centered in the local congregation and annual conference. “General Conference is not a system that allows for conflicts to be resolved through relationships and, therefore, it needs to change,” she asserted.

Despite differences in strategy, each of these leaders recognizes the importance of subsidiarity—allowing decision-making to occur at a more local level of authority. We need to deal with divisive issues locally, face-to-face, and among those who live side-by-side. The denominational level is no longer (if it ever was) an effective place for deliberation, discernment, and decision-making.

Dissolution is not the same as schism or restructure. Dividing up the denominational spoils among competing caucuses through a negotiated “Protocol” would exacerbate United Methodist divisions, focusing on money and property rather than mission. Jeremy Smith described the differences in an informative post, “What does it mean to Dissolve The United Methodist Church?” Restructuring the denomination into affinity conferences through the Connectional Conference Plan, Bard-Jones Plan, or a similar negotiated arrangement would also fail us ecclesiologically, enshrining our differences over homosexuality into the very structure of our church. Furthermore, both schism and restructuring for the sake of US ecclesial politics would leave in place the inequities of central conference structures.

Dissolution of the UMC is not a last-ditch effort to “save” this denomination or to orchestrate its demise. Instead of euthanasia by Protocol, dissolution pulls the plug on artificial life support and allows a natural death. In doing so, we may find that the UMC, like the late Terri Schiavo, had ceased meaningful functioning and any chance of resuscitation long before we allowed death to occur. No hopeful covenant for unity can change the fact that church law, for nearly 50 years, has categorically denied the first principle of unity, that “we are all children of God.” Resurrection cannot occur prior to death. We must allow this denomination to die in order to experience rebirth as a Church.

Dissolution is an intentional means of allowing new relationships to form while being true to our ecclesiology. Getting back to basics by centering our connectionalism in the annual conference can renew United Methodism. Removing the denominational overlay could actually help foster more genuine connection between individuals, congregations, and conferences. We would have to give up the imperialistic features of our global connection and our ambition to become a “worldwide” denomination. Rather than relying on structural ties, annual conferences and congregations would have to do the hard work of building new relationships—this time truly recognizing our equal dignity and equality as children of God.

Darryl W. Stephens: What Happens If General Conference Does Not Meet in 2021—or Ever Again?

Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Darryl W. Stephens. Dr. Stephens is director of United Methodist studies at Lancaster Theological Seminary and a clergy member of the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference. The post first appeared on the author's personal website, Ethics Considered. It is republished here with permission.

United Methodists are facing the very real possibility that General Conference will not meet in 2021, as scheduled. David Scott has explored the near-term implications, examining denominational division in one post and budgets, boards, and bishops in another. Here, I explore the question, What would happen to The United Methodist Church (UMC) if General Conference never met again?

For those church members worried that such a possibility would mean the end of the UMC, it is important to recognize that the UMC does not currently exist—nor has it ever existed, at least not in a legal sense. According to our own Discipline, the UMC “as a denominational whole is not an entity, nor does it possess legal capacities and attributes” (General Discipline 2016, para. 141). In other words, the general church is a fiction.

To be sure, General Conference is a real thing. It met May 10–20, 2016 in Portland, Oregon and again February 23–26, 2019 in St. Louis, Missouri. It even passed legislation and approved a general church budget to fund the work of boards, agencies, and commissions between sessions of general conference. However, General Conference ceased to exist as soon as the meeting came to a close, February 26, 2019. It will not exist until it meets again—if it ever does. The boards, agencies, and commissions mandated to carry out work on behalf of the General Conference continue to exist between sessions of General Conference. They are independently incorporated legal entities, and most have positioned themselves to serve multiple, splinter denominations in the event of a denominational schism. But that which we know as “The United Methodist Church” or “the general Church” does not exist.

What does this fiction mean? The UMC is a figment of our collective imagination, or to put it more theologically, the UMC is a covenantal agreement. The Discipline is our “book of covenant”: “It is the most current statement of how United Methodists agree to live their lives together” (General Discipline 2016, p. v). The UMC “exists” only as a covenant. The only thing animating the idea of the UMC among United Methodists is our mutual buy-in. Consider funding: apportionment formulas are precise and much debated, but actual payouts are unenforceable. Congregations and annual conferences pay what they choose to pay to the general Church.

The UMC is only as “real” as we allow it to be. When we participate faithfully and with integrity in this covenant, the denomination takes on life. Our covenantal life together can become a wondrous instrument of God’s grace. To whatever extent we fail to be in covenant, the UMC also fails to be the general Church that we so value. For many in the UMC, that covenant has already been broken; the UMC has failed to be a church for many years. Thankfully, the general church is not the essence of United Methodism.

United Methodist ecclesiology is based on connectionalism. Connectionalism, that “vital web of interactive relationships” (General Discipline 2016, para. 132), distinguishes Methodist polity from congregationalism. Connectional relationships between the general Church and every annual conference and congregation embody the functional and financial relationships of the UMC. However, we do not need a “general Church” for connectionalism. There are more immediate levels of covenant within United Methodism. This is why United Methodists claim that “The annual conference is the basic body of the Church . . .” (General Discipline 2016, para. 33).

If General Conference never met again, most of what we recognize as United Methodism would continue uninterrupted. The annual conference is the heartbeat of connectionalism. United Methodist congregations are connected to each other in an annual conference through participation in an itinerant ministry; clergy are connected through the Order of Elders and Order of Deacons; laity are connected via elected members to annual conference. In practical terms, the annual conference is where ministerial candidates are evaluated and nurtured, where clergy are commissioned and ordained, and where elders itinerate and receive pensions.

Some aspects of connectionalism would change. Political wrangling in the quadrennial arena of General Conference would cease, along with the vitriol practiced there. Annual conferences in the US, independent of the general Church, may choose different means of inculturation for Methodist polity, adapting the Discipline to their own missional needs, as conferences outside the US do currently. The process by which certain elders are elected, consecrated, and assigned as bishops would be opened to adaptation—perhaps within a pan-Methodist or wider ecumenical environment. It is also possible that some annual conferences might follow the example of the Methodist Church of Great Britain or the erstwhile Methodist Protestant Church, choosing to forgo an episcopacy. General apportionments would cease. Annual conferences would still be free to send money to general agencies, boards, and commissions to support ministry and mission around the globe. True, those payouts would be unenforceable. But is that not actually the case today?

If General Conference never met again, new relationships would be allowed to form while remaining true to the core of United Methodist ecclesiology. Old, forced relationships could be allowed to end rather than fester in acrimony within a divided denomination. Removing the denominational façade might actually help foster more genuine connection between individuals, congregations, and conferences—especially across national borders. We would have to give up the imperialistic features of our global connection and our ambition to become a “worldwide” denomination. Rather than relying on structural ties, annual conferences and congregations would have to do the hard work of relationship building. The dissolution of the UMC by abandoning General Conference would open new possibilities. Recentering our connectionalism in the annual conference could renew United Methodism in ways we have yet to imagine.

A Primer on UMC Assets: Departing Annual Conference and Remaining Local Churches

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. Dr. Scott is neither a lawyer nor an accountant, and thus the following should not be interpreted as legal advice.

The vast majority of UMC assets (over 90%) are held by local churches. While local churches own this property, the trust clause stipulates that local church property (of all sorts – real estate, tangible personal property, and intangible property including financial assets) “shall be held in trust for The United Methodist Church and subject to the provisions of its Discipline.”

Yet annual conferences have important roles to play in managing these UMC assets. They exercise oversight of local assets held in trust for the denomination, as is also made clear in the BOD. ¶2503 states that local church property is “subject to the Discipline, usage, and ministerial appointments of said Church as from time to time authorized and declared by the General Conference and by the annual conference within whose bounds the said premises are situated.” (Emphasis added.) Elsewhere, annual conferences are given clear rights in the purchase and sale of any real property by local churches.

If, as explored last week, a US annual conference were to declare itself independent of the UMC, this would raise the question of what would happen to the assets of the local churches within that annual conference. Would they remain with the UMC or go with the departing annual conference?

While the Protocol (and perhaps other proposals) would address this question, since the BOD currently makes no provision for US annual conferences to leave the denomination, the answer to this question is complicated, more so than the relatively straightforward answer to the question of the property of local congregations exiting annual conferences that remain within the UMC.

The BOD connects local church property both to the denomination as a whole and to the annual conference in which it resides. This would raise complications for local church property within a departing annual conference. There would be conflicting obligations of trust for the local church to the departing annual conference and trust to the continuing denomination.

A local church who wanted to abide by the annual conference’s decision could say that it was acting in accordance with its obligation to use its property in trust for the annual conference. A local church that wanted to stay in the UMC in opposition to the annual conference’s decision could say that it was acting in accordance with its obligation to use its property in trust for the denomination. The latter might be the stronger case, but that doesn’t mean the former would have no case. Either way, lawsuits would likely ensue.

Here’s where the difference in legal statuses of the UMC as a whole and of the annual conference would come into play. The denomination as a whole is not a legal person able to own property or bring lawsuits to claim property; the annual conference (or at least its board of trustees) is.

Since the annual conference is generally the body tasked with enforcing the trust clause on local churches, a departing annual conference would have no incentive to enforce that clause on its churches on behalf of the denomination it was leaving. Thus, it’s safe to assume churches that wanted to leave with the annual conference would not face trust clause property barriers from that annual conference.

However, a local church or factions within a local church that wanted to stay with the denomination probably could sue to sever their trust clause obligations to the departing annual conference, arguing that they were instead being faithful to their trust clause obligation to the denomination.

One of the questions they would face in making their case would be how the situation could be remedied under a legal settlement. In other words, they would probably have to propose joining another annual conference to remain part of the UMC, thus entangling the other annual conference and probably the jurisdiction (who has authority over annual conference boundaries) in the lawsuit.

It is also possible that either loyalist churches or individuals within the departing annual conference or an adjacent loyalist annual conferences could sue to try to gain control of the property of local churches that willingly depart with an annual conference. They would have to prove standing, as discussed last week. That is, these loyalist players would have to demonstrate that they were harmed by the departing local churches and indicate who should receive the property if it was found that the property should stay with the UMC.

The BOD makes no provisions for the transfer of local church property to another church or an individual without consent of the annual conference, so it would probably be difficult (though not impossible) for other local churches to sue to gain control of the property of churches departing with their annual conference. That property would probably need to be given to a loyalist annual conference.

Adjacent annual conferences could also sue, since under current principles of United Methodist polity, they could, with the jurisdiction’s consent, claim the territory “vacated” by the departing annual conference. Such a case might be weaker for annual conferences trying to cross jurisdictional lines to claim territory, since the BOD clearly gives jurisdictions the right to set annual conferences boundaries within their own territory.

GCFA could also use its authority to “safeguard and protect the interests and rights of the denomination,” but it is unlikely that GCFA would have the resources to bring thousands of suits against all departing congregations.

A departing annual conference could also try the reverse strategy: to sue a local church within its borders that wanted to remain in the UMC, seeking that their property be transferred to the departing annual conference. It’s not clear that the annual conference could win such a suit. It’s likely that a lot of the argument would hinge on when and to what extent the BOD applied to a departing annual conference vs. when and to what extent whatever new rules it adopted for itself were in effect.

Of course, sometimes the threat of a lawsuit is an effective tactic to force others to negotiate. Thus, even if they weren’t confident that they could win, departing annual conferences could threaten to sue loyalist local churches, hoping to provoke negotiations about financially severing the tie between the church and the annual conference.

The bottom line is, again, that there are plenty of opportunities for lawsuits. Note that I am not recommending any of the lawsuits mentioned in this piece. I am merely trying to explore some of the legal issues around property that might arise in the UMC within the tumult of the next several years with the hope that by surfacing these issues, such lawsuits can be avoided.

A Primer on UMC Assets: Annual Conferences and Jurisdictions

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. Dr. Scott is neither a lawyer nor an accountant, and thus the following should not be interpreted as legal advice.

While the vast majority of UMC assets are held by local churches, annual conferences and jurisdictional conferences have important roles in managing UMC assets held in trust for the denomination (as described last week). In addition, annual conferences and jurisdictional conferences, as incorporated “legal persons,” own assets themselves, which are also held in trust for the denomination.

Perhaps the most interesting question regarding annual conference and jurisdictional assets related to possible futures of the UMC is what would happen to these assets if a US annual conference or jurisdiction were to leave the denomination.

Based on samples of 10 annual conferences in the US, the assets owned by the annual conferences run a range from $15 million up to $100 million in net assets. Most annual conference net assets were in the $15-50 million range. This represents between 3-7% of the total assets within an annual conference’s area. Since districts tend to own little if any property, this means that over 90% of the assets in any given annual conference are still in its local churches.

Jurisdictions also have some assets. Based on publicly available information for four out of the five jurisdictions, they each have between $300,000 and $1,200,000 in assets, almost entirely in financial rather than tangible form. No information on assets was publicly available for the Western Jurisdiction, but it seems likely that their numbers are similar to the other jurisdictions. Again, the trust clause applies to these jurisdictional assets as well.

Currently, the Book of Discipline makes no provisions for a US annual conference or jurisdiction to leave the denomination. There are provisions for central conferences and/or their annual conferences to become autonomous, but these apply only outside the US. Certainly, GC2020 could add a provision for US annual conferences to exit the denomination (as in the Protocol), but for now, there is no provision.

An annual conference or jurisdiction could, nonetheless, declare itself independent of the UMC, and such a scenario is not completely implausible in the current situation of the church. There have been rumblings of such a plan from the Western Jurisdiction or parts thereof, but it is also possible that a traditionalist annual conference could try to exit the UMC, as Tom Lambrecht has submitted legislation to allow that.

By departing with its property, an annual conference or jurisdiction would be breaking its trust to the UMC. The BOD is not clear, however, who would have the job of enforcing the trust clause against a departing annual conference or jurisdiction. This raises the legal question of standing. Not just anyone could try to sue to reclaim that property on behalf of the UMC. Suit could only be brought by a person or entity with standing, a legal term that essential means a valid interest in the case.

To determine standing, courts usually ask whether the party bringing the lawsuit has been harmed by the actions of another, and whether that harm could be redressed by a court ruling in their favor. Thus, to prove standing, a United Methodist entity would have to prove that they were financially or in some other way harmed by the departing annual conference taking their property, and that the situation could be made better by giving the property to someone else.

As it turns out, there are a variety of possible entities that might have standing in such a case. ¶2509.2 of the BOD says, “Any denominational unit authorized to hold title to property and to enforce trusts for the benefit of the denomination may bring suit in its own name to protect denominational interests.” That is a potentially broad category.

The entity with the best case for standing in a lawsuit against a departing annual conference would be that annual conference’s jurisdiction, who could make the case that the loss of the assets of that annual conference interfered with the jurisdiction’s ability to provide United Methodist spiritual care for the people living within its area. The jurisdiction could then seek redress by the property of the departing annual conference being given to a neighboring remaining annual conference, who could then extend its ministry to the area vacated by the departing annual conference.

It is also possible that suit could be brought by a loyalist church within the departing annual conference, who could argue that their ability to receive United Methodist spiritual care had been harmed by the loss of the assets of the departing annual conference. The proposed redress would be the same: give the assets to a neighboring annual conference, who would then extend its ministry to the area of the departing annual conference. Such a suit might be more difficult to bring if the jurisdiction opposed it or had taken no action to reassign the vacated territory, since the jurisdiction has the right to determine the boundaries of annual conferences within its territory, not churches or the secular courts. Nonetheless, such a suit could still be brought.

A neighboring loyalist annual conference could also sue to claim the assets of a departing annual conference, but it might be more difficult to prove how they were harmed by the departing annual conference keeping their assets, since their purview for the care of the UMC’s interest covers only their own territory. Similarly, any annual conference, local church, or individual at a further distance would have more difficult time yet providing standing.

GCFA is another possibility to bring a suit. GCFA has authority “[t]o take all necessary legal steps to safeguard and protect the interests and rights of the denomination; to maintain resources related to the denominational interests of The United Methodist Church, and to make provisions for legal counsel where necessary to protect the interests and rights of the denomination.” Since annual conference property could be construed as relevant to the “interests and rights of the denomination,” GCFA could have standing to bring a suit. The proposed redress, however, would probably involve giving the assets of the departing body to a remaining body, not to GCFA itself, since GCFA only administers the general funds of the church and is not in the business of holding local church property.

An entire jurisdiction might present a more difficult situation for those remaining to try to prove standing to sue for the property of that jurisdiction, but there are still plenty of opportunities for lawsuits here. The BOD reserves the right to determine jurisdictional borders to the General Conference, which cannot itself bring a lawsuit, but it could direct some other church entity to do so. GCFA might also use its authority here to “safeguard and protect the interests and rights of the denomination.”

For both annual conferences and jurisdictions, it is possible that courts would want to avoid becoming entangled in the politics of a church split. In the absence of clear provisions within the Book of Discipline for who is supposed to enforce the trust clause on annual conferences and jurisdictions, a lawsuit related to exercising the trust clause on annual conferences themselves (not on churches) might be dismissed. Or it might be allowed to proceed. There is, however, a very clear potential for lawsuits, perhaps from a variety of parties, even if the outcome of those lawsuits is not clear.

This still leaves questions about the property of churches within a departing annual conference or jurisdiction, a topic I’ll address next week.

Knut Refsdal: Consensus-based processes in the church

Today's post is by Rev. Knut Refsdal, District Superintendent for The United Methodist Church in Norway. Rev. Refsdal here explains the consensus-decision making model used at this year's Norway Annual Conference meeting.

Given the situation the church finds itself in after the specially called session of the General Conference earlier this year, there was a great deal of excitement before our Annual Conference in Norway in June. It was therefore of great importance how the various cases were handled.

From the Cabinet's point of view, we decided early on that we would try to facilitate consensus-based processes. This is a process where we search for a common opinion without using formal voting and where we engage in a genuine and respectful dialogue. This is important for a church. As a church, we are called to work against all forms of divisions so that God's reconciled fellowship can become visible. We do this also in the way decisions are made.

Consensus doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone agrees. We also say that we have reached consensus when one of the following happens: Either that all those who have the right to make decisions agree on a result or most agree and that those who disagree accept that they have been heard and that they can live with the result. Thus, agreement on a result is not limited to confirming the wording of a proposal. It may also be that a consensus has been reached on another result, such as agreeing to reject a proposal, referring a case to further processing or confirming that one can take different positions in relation to the case in question.

Consensus is a willingness to explore and develop alternative ways of decision-making than what are often called "parliamentary methods." The latter aims to structure debates and proposals in such a way that they can lead to majority decisions. We know these methods very well in the church These are not methods that emphasize a goal of unity, nor are they methods that necessarily foster collaboration and broad participation and inclusion. I would say the contrary, these often promote factions with the result that one easily ends up with winners and losers in a process, which can be detrimental to internal relationships and make decisions more difficult to implement.

The goals for consensus processes are therefore: Better decisions, better implementation of decisions and better group relationships.

The following are some key principles that underpin consensus as a form of decision:

Inclusive and participatory: In a consensus process, everyone affected by a decision is included and encouraged to participate and contribute towards a final decision. Likewise, the goal is to address the needs of everyone involved in the process. Consensus is therefore a search for common opinion, understanding and will without the use of formal voting and where one strives for more voices to be heard.

Consensus seeking: Consensus is a process that seeks to reach as much consensus as possible on a decision. There is therefore a great deal of room for dialogue, consultation, exploration, questions, reflection and cooperation that increases respect and understanding.

Process-oriented: Consensus emphasizes the process towards a decision, not just the result. Therefore, all participants' views and perspectives are respected and appreciated. This means that one invests a lot also in the way a decision is made, not just in the decision itself.

Collaborative oriented: Consensus is dependent on the willingness to co-operate. All participants are encouraged to help shape matters in such a way that it can lead to a result that safeguards everyone's concerns. This is based on the belief that, by listening to everyone's perspectives, the community is better able to make decisions that most people can agree on. Consensus therefore presupposes that everyone listens with openness and humility in order to also seek the insight of others, and this implies an attitude of respectful expectation since everyone is working towards a common goal. In the concept of consensus, there is therefore an expectation of a willingness to put the interests of the whole above one’s own preferences. In locked situations, therefore, all parties must be encouraged to work together to find solutions that everyone can live with.

Relationship-building: Consensus seeks to build good group relationships through decision-making. This is intended both to create a foundation for future decisions and to improve the implementation of decisions.

At our Annual Conference, there were three proposals on the table regarding the decisions at the specially called session of the General Conference: One proposal supported the Traditional Plan. Another proposal included a statement for full inclusion. A third proposal called for more theological studies. Many voiced their opinion in the dialogue and two more proposals were presented.

It was clear, during the exploring period, which often is the starting point in a consensus-based decision-making process, that there was a solid majority for full inclusion. But there were no ordinary votes on the proposals. Instead a consensus process was used to guide the conference to a broadest possible consensus on the matter. Every delegate was given orange and blue colored papers to indicate agreement or disagreement. The minority was given time to voice their concerns and the proposals were adjusted accordingly.

The people behind the different proposals were asked to work on a joint proposal, weighted by the consensus indications given. They came back with a single proposal that included:

  •  an agreement that the large majority wants full inclusion.
  •  a willingness to respect the view of the minority that wants to uphold the discipline.
  •  a strong determination to keep TUMC in Norway together.
  •  to establish a broad commission to seek a way to fully include LGBTQ+ persons and map consequences for the discipline, finances, organization and international connections.
  •  to deliver a report to the Annual Conference 2020 for deliberations and actions.

The church in Norway is not of one mind in this matter, but the will of the majority is clear and the majority is willing to make concessions to include as many as possible. This achieved a consensus and a broad platform for our upcoming work for the next year.

Darryl W. Stephens - Connectionalism: What Connectional Relationships Really Mean in the UMC

Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Darryl W. Stephens. Dr. Stephens is director of United Methodist studies at Lancaster Theological Seminary and a clergy member of the Texas Annual Conference. He is author of Methodist Morals: Social Principles in the Public Church’s Witness (University of Tennessee Press).

While discussing the nature of apportionments, it is helpful to understand the philosophy and intent behind some of these expenditures. The World Service Fund, the largest of the seven apportioned funds, pays for the work of General Conference’s agencies and boards. What is the nature of this form of connection, binding United Methodists from the local congregation to the whole of this denomination?

“Connectionalism” is an often used and seldom understood buzzword in The United Methodist Church. The Discipline states, “Our connectionalism is … a vital web of interactive relationships” (Book of Discipline 2016, ¶ 132). This vague definition becomes more concrete by tracing the relationships that comprise each enterprise of the General Conference, for example the Status and Role of Women.

Connectional relationships bridge the work of General Conference to every level of structure in the denomination. The constitution reserves for the General Conference “full legislative power over all matters distinctly connectional,” including the power “to initiate and to direct all connectional enterprises of the Church and to provide boards for their promotion and administration” (¶ 16.8).

The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women (GCSRW) is one such board, mandated by General Conference to carry out a specific connectional enterprise, “a continuing commitment to the full and equal responsibility and participation of women in the total life and mission of the Church” (¶ 2102). Every charge conference and every other level of the denomination must connect with this enterprise, according to judicial interpretation of our constitution.

Judicial Decision 411 states, “When the General Conference initiates connectional enterprises and provides boards for their promotion and administration, the functioning of such boards must reach to every level in the life of the Church, from the General Board to the Charge Conference.”

How is this connectional relationship realized? Each annual conference is responsible for structuring itself to further the connectional enterprises of the General Conference.

¶ 610. The annual conference is responsible for structuring its ministries and administrative procedures …. In so doing it shall provide for the connectional relationship of the local church, district, and conference with the general agencies. It will monitor to ensure inclusiveness—racial, gender, age, and people with disabilities—in the annual conference. … (emphasis added)

Thus, the mandates of GCSRW reach throughout the denomination, at every level of conferencing. Each annual conference is required to provide structures to enable the relationships of the ministry of GCSRW, as well as all of the other connectional enterprises of General Conference.

¶ 644. There shall be in each annual conference, including the central conferences, a conference commission on the status and role of women or other structure to provide for these functions and maintain the connectional relationships.

Annual conferences are given some degree of flexibility for structuring these relationships within committees, but the basic requirements are to maintain the function of and connection to the General Commission, which is an agent of General Conference.

¶ 610. 1. Annual conferences are permitted the flexibility to design conference and district structures in ways that best support the mission …. In doing so, an annual conference shall provide for the functions and General Conference connections with all general agencies provided by the Discipline as follows: a) There shall be clear connections between the General Conference agencies, annual conference program and administrative entities, and the local congregations. These connections shall be identified in the business questions of the annual conference each year. …All disciplinary references to “equivalent structures” shall be defined by this paragraph. (emphasis added)

Judicial Council Decision 815 clarifies that “equivalent structures” must be substantive and identifiable:  “In doing this [restructuring], the annual conference may organize units so long as the functions of ministry are fulfilled and the connectional relationships are maintained.” (emphasis added)

Connectional relationships are embodied, functional, and financial. Judicial Council decisions 1198 and 1225 make clear that an “equivalent structure” (for example, a blended committee) must have a designated person and budget to maintain the connectional relationship with each general agency. For example, the annual conference COSROW chair must be nominated and elected by the annual conference, and the annual conference COSROW chair or committee must be given a budget specific to its work—a common pool of funds for a blended committee is insufficient. These responsibilities cannot be delegated—the annual conference (not a committee) must elect a COSROW chair and allocate a budget.

Connectional relationships must likewise reach to every district and local congregation (¶ 610). When every local church has identified a person for the ministry of “a continuing commitment to the full and equal responsibility and participation of women in the total life and mission of the Church” (¶ 2102) and this ministry is coordinated with the district, annual conference, jurisdictional (or central) conference, and general conference ministry of the status and role of women, then we will have achieved “a vital web of interactive relationships”—a glimpse of connectionalism.

So, when we consider apportionments for general agencies, we are talking about more than fees for services. “Unbundling” the work of general agencies would circumscribe the relationship of the local congregation to the denomination as a whole. A system of subscription fees might preserve some of the functions of general agencies (for those who participate) but would not nurture the connectional relationships constitutive of the UMC. The UMC could no longer claim “connectionalism [as] … a vital web of interactive relationships.”

Philip Wingeier-Rayo: The United Methodist Representational Problem, Part I

Today's piece is the first in a three-part series by Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo. Dr. Wingeier-Rayo is Dean of Wesley Theological Seminary.

The United Methodist Church has a representational problem.

The recent General Conference in St. Louis was comprised of 864 elected delegates, half lay and half clergy, who were elected according to a formula proportionate to the membership in their home conferences.

A representative democracy was established at the founding of the Methodist Episcopal Church at the Christmas Conference in 1784 in Baltimore. The conference system builds on the foundational system of Christian conferencing established by John Wesley in England, and moves from the local church, to the annual conference, to jurisdictional/central conference, and finally General Conference, which is the maximum authority of the church.

The question is how do we define representational?

Let’s take for example the basis of the United Methodist form of government, the annual conference, also composed of an equal number of lay and clergy delegates. Although seemingly fair and equitable, this model actually gives proportionately more representation to smaller membership churches than medium and larger membership churches.

Why is this? A small membership church may have 50 members or fewer, while a medium to large membership church may have considerably more—yet these churches may both have one appointed pastor, and thus be allotted one lay delegate. Larger churches may have several pastors on staff (e.g. youth pastor, children’s minister, pastor of visitation, executive pastor, etc.), but if they aren’t appointed, then they will not be delegates to annual conference. So a large church may have many more members and pay much more in apportionments, yet only be allotted one lay delegate per appointed pastor—the same as a small membership church.

And nobody knows if the lay delegate for each church will necessarily vote in a way that is representational of his or her church membership. The UM representational system has no way of holding delegates accountable for voting with their constituency. Once delegates are voted on at charge conference, each delegate is free to vote his or her conscience and does not have to vote as a representative of the wishes of his or her congregation.

There is also no way to assure fair demographic representation in the United Methodist system. If a congregation is comprised of 50% men and 50% women and elects a male delegate, then are the women represented? And if the church names someone who is retired, are the youth represented? And this doesn’t begin to address the ethnic diversity in a congregation.

The representative formula for General Conference is different from that of annual conference. While the annual conference is one lay and one clergy delegate per church, the formula for General Conference is proportionate to conference membership. Those conferences with larger church membership receive more delegates.

Similar to annual conference delegates, the formula for electing General Conference delegates has no way to guarantee that women are proportionately represented. Of the 864 elected delegates at St. Louis, 309 (36%) were women and (64%) were men. Among U.S. delegates the delegates were 56.3% men to 46.5% women. Among the Central Conference delegates, men outnumbered women 260 to 87 for a 3:1 men to women ratio. Of the jurisdictions, the Northeast was the only jurisdiction with a majority of women delegates (54.7%).

The majority of male delegates contrasts with the membership of local churches. Dana Roberts reported in her book, Gospel Bearers, Gender Barriers, that two-thirds of the membership of the global church are women.  And if we look at who are the people behind the scenes making ministry happen, women often play significant roles in churches, but are disproportionately underrepresented as delegates.

Young people are another group who were disproportionately represented In St. Louis with delegates under the age of 35 being only 7% of delegates.

Yet their voice was heard when they wrote a statement signed by 15,000 youth from around the world which encouraged delegates to: “elect a young person to your 2020 delegation. Not as a reserve, but as someone seated with a vote on the floor. Mentor a young person to run. Advocate for a young person to be elected. Show up for the young people in your life, and actually celebrate them around these tables in 2020. If we are actually part of the Body, it is time to bring our voice and vote around these tables.”  The statement went on to say: “Over and over, bishops and delegates have told us from the floor here, they don’t want us to leave, but with all due respect, you are not fighting to keep us here.”

Despite their under-representation, young people will be disproportionately financially impacted by a decline or division in the denomination through losses in support for ministerial education and impacts on ministerial pension plans.

The formula for delegates to General Conference has no way to account for equal financial responsibility and accountability. If a delegate votes for a petition that has financial implications, that delegate will not necessarily be proportionately impacted. The delegates at General Conference set the budget for the whole church. One supposes that these delegates are generous givers as members of their local church, but nobody knows how much they pledge.

So as a body the General Conference creates a budget that they personally will not cover. Some conferences may have larger membership, but their financial contribution to the general church is not proportionate to their membership. Conversely, a conference that is allotted just a few delegates may make a substantial contribution to the general church. The size of an annual conferences delegation to General Conference is not proportionate to its apportionment to the general church budget.

Yes, the United Methodist Church has a representative democracy, however there are different ways to interpret “representative.” At the annual conference level, representative is defined as one clergy and one lay delegate per church, and so large churches who contribute more are disproportionately underrepresented. At General Conference the number of delegates is proportionate to conference membership; however, there is no consideration for proportionate gender, age, ethnicity or financial contributions of the annual conference.

This formula without provisions for gender, age, ethnicity or financial representation leads to certain groups being disproportionately underrepresented and not having their voices heard. It also leads to other groups having a disproportionate power in spite of not being representative of their home church or conference.

As we strive toward perfection, I invite United Methodists to reflect on ways to improve our representative democracy to have people making decisions who are truly making ministry happen in our local churches through their prayers, presence, gifts, service and witness.

In the second part of this blog I will discuss the mission of The United Methodist Church and whether membership is the best metric to assess participation in the life of the church.

Recommended Reading: 2018 Annual Conference Reports from the Central Conferences

I (David Scott) have written before on this blog (post 1 and post 2) about the challenges and inequalities that are involved in reporting annual conference proceedings from outside the US.

That's why I'm happy to see that the 2018 Annual Conference reports include reports from several annual conferences in the central conferences that weren't reporting just a couple of years ago.

Most European annual conferences have submitted reports for some time, but additional Congolese annual conferences are now submitting. These new reports from Africa are in addition to Liberia, which has submitted reports for some years. Reports from other West African and south and east African annual conferences are still not present.

Filipino annual conferences remain a big lacuna in the reports, as there are no reports from any of the annual conferences in the Philippines. Most Filipino annual conferences meet in the spring or early summer.

Should the UMC have missional rather than geographic annual conferences?

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.

For the last two weeks, I have been looking at the question of how we can structurally support innovation in The United Methodist Church. I have argued that this is a particularly important question for those interested in mission since mission is a primary form of innovation for the church. Last week, I examined the evangelical approach, which is to have a low bar for the creation of new, separate structures to support innovation in churches and mission work.

This week, I’ll look at Catholicism as an alternative model of innovation. For those committed to overarching organizational unity, Catholicism is a good model. Not only does Catholicism have an overarching organizational unity, the Roman Catholic Church is one of the oldest human organizations on the planet. It’s over 1500 years older than the oldest nonprofits and fraternal organizations, a millennium older than the oldest universities, and 500 years older than the oldest companies.

If evangelicals innovate by starting new, separate organizations, Catholics have another approach to innovation – the creation of new units within the larger organization. One of the main ways this has happened is through the creation of new orders. New orders were historically able to pioneer new forms of devotion (prayer, preaching, pilgrimage, etc.) that drew people closer to the church. They were also often responsible for the evangelization of new geographic areas. Thus, the creation of a new order was a way to sanction some innovation in Catholic religiosity or geographic coverage.

Individual orders have had the tendency to become susceptible to the same sort of organizational stagnation I wrote about in my initial post, but since the Catholic church is always open to new orders and sub-orders, it is not dependent on the vitality of any one of these orders. There was a persistent pattern in medieval Catholicism of the creation of new monastic orders that would implement reforms, achieve success, become stagnant, and then decline and need reform themselves. Then the cycle would start over again.

Protestants don’t have orders, so the question is what structures do we have that could serve the same function? The basic structure of Methodism is the annual conference. Annual conferences do several of the same things that Catholic orders do – they recruit, ordain, and missionally deploy clergy. They also carry out a variety of programs such as health and welfare ministries that Catholic orders frequently do.

Yet annual conferences currently have several problems that inhibit them from consistently and effectively supporting innovation. There is a tendency for annual conferences to reflect the same sort of organizational bureaucratic malaise and rigidity from which the denomination as a whole suffers. Also, the geographic organization of annual conferences leads to less innovation when they are not in a pioneer situation with clear margins along which to expand. In most places, the geographic organization of established annual conferences tends to lead to a pastoral and maintenance focus on existing congregations.

The Mission Initiatives sponsored by Global Ministries are good examples of organizational structures that support growing, innovative mission in areas without a historic United Methodist presence. But the question remains of how United Methodists in areas with a long-established presence can continue to be innovative. There are some annual conferences that have effectively supported innovative ministries within their own, long-established geographic limits. The Florida Annual Conference’s Fresh Expressions initiative is one such example. Yet such instances seem to be the exception rather than the norm.

Another possible solution to organizationally supporting innovation in the UMC would be to allow United Methodists to create new units within the larger church that would focus on some particular form of innovative ministry. If annual conferences are the basic units of United Methodism, this could mean the creation of missionally-defined rather than geographically-bounded annual conferences.

This approach has happened before in Methodism. Examples include the various ethnic or language-group annual conferences or the Red Bird Mission Conference. These annual conferences geographically overlap(ped) other (Anglo) annual conferences but were focused on missional outreach to a particular group facilitated by a flexible organizational system controlled by those doing the outreach. While that was usually defined in terms of a particular ethnic and/or immigrant group, there’s no particular reason why that same approach could not be used for other missional foci.

It’s important to say that the people doing the innovation must be the ones in charge of selecting this option and then customizing it for their needs. It can’t be an imposition by others. The Central Jurisdiction is a tragic example of a separate, non-geographically defined structure that was imposed on others because of the prejudices of the dominant group, not chosen by a particular group to give themselves organizational freedom to adapt and innovate. I am not calling for anything resembling the Central Jurisdiction.

Another version of this approach to creating new organizations within a wider umbrella is found in the third, multi-branch model under consideration by the Commission on a Way Forward. The multi-branch model seems to authorize this sort of new structures within a larger system. But these structures are defined only by the one issue of sexuality and are more for the sake of keeping peace than fostering innovation. United Methodists need to be able to innovate in other ways beyond the one issue of sexuality. Moreover, such an approach could happen within a unified church as well as a multi-branch church. The examples cited above were all part of unified churches.

This approach to sponsoring innovation should, though, lead us to think more deeply about what unifies us. Catholics have certain theological, spiritual, and organizational common touchpoints that keep them together despite a proliferation of sub-organizations. United Methodists will have to find our own.

Among the most important must be our understanding of unity. Authorizing new structures within the larger group works when we see unity not as about institutional uniformity but rather as about bonds of spiritual connection. I have argued elsewhere (here, here, here, and here) that a relational understanding of unity is the best approach to unity. Here’s another reason why: Thinking of unity relationally open us up to innovative ministries and mission.

Conferencing, relationships, and denominational unity

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.

Here is an interesting comparison for United Methodists: The Church of the Nazarene had their quadrennial General Assembly this past summer. Opening worship for the event, which brought together Nazarenes from around the world, emphasized “unity in diversity,” a theme participants enthusiastically affirmed, talking about how much they valued relationships across cultural and national differences in the church. Organizers and participants referred to General Assembly as a “global family reunion.” At GA2017, one of the big debates was whether to have future General Assemblies every four years or every five years. Delegates voted to keep future General Assemblies every four years because they so enjoyed meeting together.

Such a description is nigh-unthinkable for a General Conference of The United Methodist Church. If General Conference were to promote a theme of “unity in diversity,” it would be cynical dismissed by many participants as a top-down attempt to paper over divisions and preserve the institution. Participants often speak of the global nature of the church as a challenge rather than a blessing. Nobody thinks of General Conference as a family reunion. And no majority would vote to keep the meeting every four years for the fun of it. GC might be kept every four years, but the reason would be to address all of the important business facing it.

The Church of the Nazarene’s General Assembly and The United Methodist Church’s General Conference are both expressions of the Wesleyan practice of conferencing. But they seemingly could not be more different. How can we account for this difference, and what can it tell us about The United Methodist Church can effectively foster the sorts of familial Christian relationships necessary to undergird denominational unity?

In his book, The Methodist Conference in America: A History, Russ Richey argues that the practice of conferencing in American Methodism, at all levels from charge conferences to General Conferences, originally served three functions: polity, fraternity, and revival. Polity refers to official decision-making, fraternity refers to relationship-building, and revival refers to spirituality-building. One of Richey’s main arguments in the book is that, over time, the polity function has edged out the other two, especially at less local levels of the church. There’s certainly much to bemoan about the loss of the revival function, but for now my focus is on the loss of the fraternity function.

As Richey demonstrates, the reasons for the eclipse of fraternity by polity are many and long-term. The complexity of Methodist polity has increased. The number of Methodists has increased since the 18th century. The diversity of Methodists has increased. The culture around us has changed. And Richey barely touches on the global nature of The United Methodist Church. There is no simple one thing for us to reverse to go back to a better time in the history of United Methodism.

Yet, with the work of the Commission on a Way Forward and the called General Conference in February of 2019, we do have the opportunity to fashion new ways of going forward, new ways of being for the future, even if we cannot simply go back to the past.

One thing United Methodists can learn from our ancestors and from our Nazarene cousins is the importance of making time and space for relationships in our conferences. If we want our denomination to foster relationships, then we need to allot sufficient time in our gatherings to create genuine relationships.

Instead, United Methodists, following the logic of American culture and under the pressures of a slowly diminishing American base, have prized efficiency and impact in how we structure our conferences. We have prioritized making as many decisions on as many topics as possible. These priorities have left us with little time for relationship, which has not been a priority.

Creating time and space for relationships is not easy. It requires effort. It is expensive. It often means letting go of other things one could be doing with that time and space. Creating time and space for relationships requires prioritizing relationships over other functions.

The Nazarenes have some insight here in how they structure General Assembly: Minimize the decisions you need to make. Nazarenes have a strong practice of subsidiarity: more local organizations have a lot of the decision-making power, freeing up more time in General Assembly. In addition, while General Assembly does speak to important issues in the church and world, it does not try to be comprehensive in its proclamations, freeing up more time. Less is more: the fewer decisions that General Assembly needs to make, the more time for relationships.

Such principles could apply to United Methodism as well, and not just at General Conference. Where can more decision-making be entrusted to locals? What can we afford not to address at our conferences? How can we then open up more space for relationships?

In my post last week, I suggested denominations can’t get more relationship by doing more of what they’re already doing. Here I am suggesting something even stronger: to foster more relationship, we may even need to do less of what we’re already doing. The surprising insight is that in order to have a more unified denomination, we may need to let go rather than grab tight. In order to get more relationship and thus more unity, we must be willing to give up our own power and accept our limitations.

We may find comfort than in so doing, we will be following the way of Jesus, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross” (Philippines 2:6-8). Jesus gave up his own power and accepted limitations, even the limitation of death, all for the sake of relationship, for the sake of love. May we have the courage to do likewise.

Recommended reading: Annual Conferences act on immigration

Immigration is a hot topic in the United States, so it is not surprising that recent UMC annual conference meetings in the US should address the issue. 17 US annual conferences passed some sort of resolution regarding welcoming and caring for immigrants and/or reform of the United States' immigration system. Both Church & Society and UMNS have rundowns of the actions:

Church & Society summary of annual conference actions on immigration

UMNS story on annual conference actions on immigration and other topics

Recommended readings: European annual conferences and migration

Following are two stories about how European United Methodists continue to undertake work relating to migration:

First, migration was a significant topic of discussion at the meeting of the Switzerland-France-North Africa Annual Conference, held July 16-19. The conversations around migration led to the annual conference adopting an official statement on migrants and refugees. The statement traces themes of migration in the Bible before making connections to current reasons for migration and ethical principles for responding to migrants. A report on the conference and the text of the statement can be found in this story (in French) from the annual conference. The statement can also be viewed in German and English versions.

Second, a video entitled "Willkommen" ("Welcome") produced by German United Methodists about their work with refugees was shown at the annual conference of the Methodist Church in Britain in July. The video made a significant impact on conference attendees, as reported in this article (in German) from the UMC in Germany. The end of the article also mentions continued discussions of migration at this summer's annual conferences in Germany. More information on the video and related educational materials can be found here, and the video can be viewed online in German and English versions.

Recommended Reading: Rosemarie Wenner - "How We Learn to Argue"

In a blog post last week, I suggested the following: "I think that greater reporting on these annual conferences [outside the US] could also remind Americans of an important truth: annual conferences are not and should not be just about politics. They're also times for revival, renewal, worship, and fellowship."

As it so happened, later that day I came across a piece written by Germany Area Bishop Rosemarie Wenner about how Methodist conferences can be a place to learn how to disagree as Christians, not just conduct business. I have translated it below for our English-speaking readers. The original German can be found here.

How We Learn to Argue
By Bishop Rosemarie Wenner
In Methodism, Annual Conference is not only a place for business meetings. Rather, we can allow God’s grace to flow through conversations that we have in Christian community. We should practice this and create the social space in which we can learn speech that builds up and constructive arguing.

Four conferences lie behind me. Three happened in various corners of Germany. The General Conference met in the northwest US. As different as the places and the external circumstances were, in all conferences we came to the unifying theme: How do we live out the mission of the church to make disciples of Jesus Christ in a constantly changing world?

Whether these were good conferences or not will be determined by how this impulse is taken and put into action. At General Conference, “Christian Conferencing” was often spoken of. This term, which goes back to John Wesley, is difficult to translate. We need not incorporate the awkward phrase “Christliches Konferenzieren” into our language. We should, however, practice the culture of dialogue that it signifies. John Wesley expected that we could let God’s grace flow through conversations that we have in Christian community. He formulated the following guiding questions:

“Are we convinced how important and how difficult it is that we build our conversation aright? Is it filled with grace? Is it seasoned with salt? Are we endeavoring to offer grace to our listeners? Are we speaking too long on a given subject? As a rule, is not an hour long enough? Would it not be good to prepare for our conversation? And to pray before and after?”

The conferences are over. The dialogue process goes on. In north Germany, there are committees that will begin to work on the questions identified about the future. In east Germany, congregations are busying themselves with the question of how to reach out with less baggage to people in their neighborhoods. And in south Germany, the districts are taking the visions for the future sketched by the District Superintendents to direct the work of the congregations accordingly.

Church as a place of learning for society
The question of how unity in diversity can succeed concerns us not only on a world-wide scale. In the larger political sphere and in our everyday lives, we encounter many situations in which words fuel conflict. We urgently need room in which we can learn speech that builds up and constructive arguing. This also means that we name our feelings and conflicting interests and search for good compromises. If we learn these practices in the church, it will also benefit our wider surroundings.

Global inequalities in annual conference scheduling and the Methodist news cycle

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.

As any reporter knows, there are cycles to the news - periods when stories are more frequent and more significant, and periods when there are fewer stories and/or stories of less significance. While I'm not a reporter, I have discovered over the past several years of running this blog and its associated Twitter account, that there are also cycles to global Methodist news (news about Methodists working together across national boundaries, news about Methodists outside the US, and/or news about Methodists interacting with international issues, either internal or external to the church).

Within that cycle of global Methodist news, June is a slow month. Sure, there have still been stories the last month about the work of Methodists around the globe and stories about international issues such as immigration that affect the church, but the volume is less than other times of year. Undoubtedly this decrease is because much of the attention is focused on more local and regional news coming out of the annual conferences happening in June. Yet if one pushes a little farther on this observation, it becomes apparent how this lull in global Methodist news in June is actually a reflection of geographic inequalities in the United Methodist Church.

First, it's important to point out which annual conferences are meeting in June and which aren't. All of the American annual conferences met between late May and the end of June, mostly in the first two weeks of June. Yet few of the annual conferences from the central conferences met then. Many of those annual conferences already met, earlier in the spring. Thus, the lull in global UMC news in June is because much of the denominational apparatus is focusing on the US for several weeks, more so even than it usually does.

This focus on the US would not necessarily be a problem, but this year's news cycle highlights the significant implications of this schedule of annual conferences especially in years when General Conference has been held. It's not that no annual conferences have taken actions in the past several weeks that will have implications for the denomination as a whole. Varying resolutions on sexuality and reproduction taken by several annual conferences undoubtedly will. It's that it's only American annual conferences which have been meeting and taking those actions.

Thus, the scheduling of annual conferences ends up reinforcing American dominance of the denomination and the link between General Conference and American issues. Not only do the sorts of things that come up at General Conference tend to reflect a particularly American set of cultural understandings, values, and battles, Americans are then given the first chance to react to those issues through annual conferences and thus shape how decisions at General Conference will play out in the life of the denomination.

While the seemingly obvious answer to this problem is to change the schedule of annual conferences, there are dangers here as well. Requiring annual conferences from the central conferences to meet in June is imposing an American standard that may not fit realities in different contexts. Scheduling American annual conferences at more greatly varying times would be another solution, but the situation noted above would still create an incentive for conferences who want to have greater influence to meet in June, just as American states jockey for influential spots in the schedule of presidential primaries and caucuses.

One thing that could make a significant impact regardless of scheduling changes is better and more extensive reporting on annual conferences in the central conferences and the decisions taken there. There is already some of that, but there could be more. I think that greater reporting on these annual conferences could also remind Americans of an important truth: annual conferences are not and should not be just about politics. They're also times for revival, renewal, worship, and fellowship. These elements are also worth a story or two.

The global and the local at Annual Conferences

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.

It's Annual Conference time again in The United Methodist Church. For many, this is a much-anticipated (or much-dreaded) time to reunite with, confer with, and sometimes fight with other pastors and laity from within the geographic bounds of the conference. For us here at UM & Global, though, it means slow news days. Now that I've been moderating this blog for a few years, I can confidently proclaim a trend: during the first few weeks of June, there are fewer stories from around the global connection circulating through United Methodist news media.

That's not to say there are none, as proved by these two great stories from this week about the work Africa University grads are doing throughout Africa. But after a spring when there were almost more stories from outside the US or on transnational issues than I could read, let alone analyze for the blog, the hopper is currently a bit empty as United Methodists focus inward during this time of conferencing.

Yet because of the connectional nature of the UMC, this focus inward during Annual Conference season is not entirely separate from a focus on the global church. While it may not generate stories through UMNS, the global is present at Annual Conference meetings in a variety of ways:

1. Many Annual Conferences are going to be taking up further collections as part of their drive toward denominational goals for the Imagine No Malaria global health initiative.

2. Bishops, pastors, professors, and others from around the UMC and even from non-UMC sister Methodist churches will be preaching and presenting at Annual Conferences other than their own.

3. Many Annual Conferences will consider supporting (or opposing) resolutions related to the various plans for global reorganization of the denomination that will be debated at General Conference 2016.

4. Annual Conferences will be hearing from mission partners located and missionaries serving around the world.

So, as you're coming home from or heading off to your Annual Conference, ask yourself: Where is the global in the local in this year's meeting?

Should all annual conferences submit news reports about their meetings?

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.

We are now in a new year and soon a new season of annual conferences.  For any of you interested in seeing news reports from last year's annual conferences, you can find many of them posted online on this page of umc.org.  If you peruse the list of annual conference news stories, you'll notice something: almost all of them are from the United States.  The Central and Southern Europe Episcopal Area also has almost all of their reports on the website, but there are no reports from any other central conference, including those in Africa, the Philippines, and the rest of Europe.  Thus, it seems that the information available on annual conference proceedings is geographically uneven.  This raises a question then: Should all annual conferences submit news reports about their meetings to be posted on the umc.org website?

First, a note on what we're talking about here.  The reports available on umc.org are news stories written, generally by conference staff or clergy, about what went on during the annual conference meetings.  They're not the official listings of appointments, resolutions, ordinations, and the like that are required by discipline.  To my knowledge, all annual conferences submit those.

The main argument for submitting such reports is spreading the knowledge and information that are essential for promoting connectionalism between the various branches of the UMC.  We may legitimately wonder how many people would read the annual report for the Malawi Provisional Annual Conference, for instance, outside of Malawi, but the number is probably much greater than you would think.  I believe there is such an appetite for stories about what's going on around the church globally among partner churches and annual conferences, among nearby annual conferences, and among United Methodists seeking to be generally educated about their church.  Moreover, the number of people outside of Malawi who can learn about the Malawi Provisional Annual Conference's proceedings without such a news story is few to none.

There are, however, some hurdles to collecting and posting such news stories.  Technology may be a hurdle is some places, though not in all areas of the world that aren't submitting reports.  More of a hurdle would be the staff and time to write and submit such reports.  In small annual conferences, annual conferences without much administrative structure, or annual conferences in which educated clergy capable of writing articles are already stretched thin, such a task may seem not worth the resources.  Language could be an issue, too, though I don't see why umc.org couldn't post news stories about annual conferences in French, Portuguese, Spanish, or other languages, if those are the prime languages for communication in the respective annual conferences.  Organizational culture may play a role as well, with some annual conferences focused primarily inward without a sense that their story matters to the wider church.

Despite these obstacles, though, I think the goal of news reports from all annual conferences is a good one to work towards.  We cannot function as a global church if we know a great deal about what's going on in the US and very little about what's going on anywhere else in the world.  UM Communications, UMNS, GBGM, GBHEM, this blog, and others are working to change that, but having news reports from each annual conference would be an important step toward greater awareness, understanding, and sense of connection between conferences around the world.

Would a flat UMC be a more global UMC?

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.

Bishop Mike Coyner recently wrote this interesting article, which suggests that the way forward past divisive debates and into better ministry might be for the UMC to give annual conferences greater latitude rather than relying upon the General Conference to set all policies for the entire denomination.  Coyner's basic question is "What if we allowed each AC around the world to make its own decisions on all matters other than those restricted by the Constitution? What if we allowed each AC to be innovative and flexible on all matters other than our basic doctrine and theological task (as outlined elsewhere in the current Book of Discipline)?"  As a flip side to that question, Coyner adds, "What if we allowed General Conference to focus upon its primary task of adopting policies, mission goals, and budgets for the whole of our UMC—without asking the General Conference to micromanage every aspect of the UMC around the world?"

While Coyner is responding in large part to the controversy over LGBT issues and the threat of schism originating in the United States, he recognizes that his proposal could have a number of (potentially positive) consequences beyond providing a way forward on this issue.  I thought it worth commenting about several aspects of his proposal, as they seem to have important implications for how the UMC functions as a global denomination.

1. Coyner also asks, "What if we allowed each AC to modify its own Social Principles and approve its own Resolutions applied to the unique cultural and political settings of its geography and people?"  Such an approach could resolve the current tensions about the US-centric nature of the current social principles, as previously discussed on this blog.

2. Coyner further wonders, "What if we allowed each AC to establish its own standards and processes to train clergy and laity to serve their churches and their unique mission field?"  While this approach would reduce (though certainly not eliminate) conflict in the United States about the ordination of LGBT persons, it would also highlight (and potentially lead to a resolution of) missiological questions about whether the proper educational or other standards for ordination worldwide should be based on Western standards or could be adapted to local circumstances.

3. Coyner suggests a change in relationship between the annual conferences and the general boards in which annual conferences would have more freedom to choose which general boards to partner with on what projects or issues, with support for general boards coming in part through these partnerships rather than primarily through funding from General Conference.  While such a proposal might run the risk of defunding important global ministries, it may also build upon a positive trend initiated by such boards as GBGM, GBHEM, and GBOD in developing close partnerships with annual conferences around the world that lead to productive new ministries in Africa, Europe, and Asia, as well as the United States.

Ultimately, whatever the other implications of Coyner's suggestions, I think his idea is based on a solid missiological insight: that the ways in which we live out the gospel through effective ministry must be shaped by context.  Annual conferences, which meet more frequently and are more closely identified with particular contexts, may be better able to live out that insight than General Conference.

Annual Conference news

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.

It's early June, which in the United Methodist world means it's Annual Conference time.  I just returned from an inspiring and uplifting experience at the Wisconsin Annual Conference led by Bishop Hee-soo Jung.  For more on that experience, see the Twitter hashtag #wiumc13.

You can follow news and reports from Annual Conference from around the connection through the United Methodist News Service by visiting this webpage.  For those of us blessed with an internet connection, it's a great way to see what other United Methodists from around the world are doing in their ministry.

Indeed, Annual Conference holds a special place for global Methodism.  It's still one of the things that unites all United Methodism.  While its format and content have varied over the years and across conference, the experience of joining together yearly for prayer and deliberation is is one that ties us not only to our historical roots but also to our sisters and brothers in Christ who are fellow United Methodists throughout the world.