5 UMC Story Lines for Spring 2023

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.

After the conclusion of episcopal elections in November and the focus on Advent and the Christmas season last month, United Methodists are now beginning to discern what 2023 has in store for them, individually and collectively.

Of course, the most important story lines in The United Methodist Church remain the routine, every day, often overlooked work in congregations and conferences around the world of making disciples for the transformation of the world. Such work doesn’t always garner headlines, but it remains the heart of United Methodism.

What follows is five story lines to watch this spring on a connectional level. That is, they are story lines that impact the sorts of relationships (United) Methodists have with one another and the conversations about being the church that occur within those relationships. There is one story for each of the four regions of the church, plus one world-wide story.

United States: How will disaffiliations play out?
Disaffiliation of local churches has been a phenomenon mostly limited to the United States. Book of Discipline Paragraph 2553 provides a path for congregations in the United States (but not elsewhere) to leave the denomination by the end of this year.

About 2,000 of the denomination’s 30,000 churches exercised that option in 2022, but it is unclear how many more will leave. Exiting Traditionalists have sought to take as many congregations as possible, while those remaining in the denomination have in some instances sought to make the process more difficult to retain as many churches as possible.

Those remaining in the UMC have some incentive to try to wrap up the disaffiliation process this year so that they can turn their energy into renovating the denomination that remains. Some annual conferences have already scheduled end-of-year meetings to finalize 2023 disaffiliations. However, recent developments such as a new process for disaffiliation in South Carolina and a pause on disaffiliations in North Georgia open the possibility for the process to drag out beyond 2023.

Africa: How will the bishops, the Africa Initiative, and other groups shape the future of the church?
The African bishops released a statement last September in which they pledged loyalty to the UMC and condemned advocacy groups such as the Africa Initiative and the Wesleyan Covenant Association. While the statement caught many in the United States by surprise, it merely brought into the light a long simmering and slowly growing conflict between the bishops and the Africa Initiative.

That conflict continues, and both groups will continue to use the resources at their command to push for their vision of the future of the church – in the case of the bishops, one in which the UMC in Africa remains a part of the worldwide connection, and in the case of the Africa Initiative, one in which the church in Africa considers other possibilities starting in 2024.

One factor that may add to how these debates shape up is the creation of a new group, the United Methodist Africa Forum, a group of Africans promoting loyalty to the UMC. It remains to be seen whether this new group (or other similar groups, like the Voice of Africa Unity) will become significant players in the debates about the future of The United Methodist Church in Africa.

Philippines: Can new bishops keep the church united?
Amidst conflict elsewhere, the recently retired Filipino bishops have been remarkably successful in holding the church in the Philippines together and focused on their common mission and ministry in the Filipino setting. Moreover, Filipino advocacy for the Christmas Covenant and the idea of regionalization more broadly has made a distinctive contribution to debates about the future of the worldwide connection.

Three new bishops are new serving in the Philippines as of the start of the month. Indications are that they intend to continue the approach of their predecessors, emphasizing Filipino unity and a regional focus on the church’s ministry in the Philippines.

However, they will need to nurture the relationships and spread the messages necessary to pull off such a vision while also learning the ropes of a new and multifaceted ministry role. Many Filipino annual conferences happen in the spring, so these annual conferences will be a chance for the bishops to establish themselves and to solidify their vision for the future of the church.

Europe: Can plans to maintain unity within diversity hold?
Europe received a lot of United Methodist attention in 2022 because it was the site of the first annual conference seeking to leave The United Methodist Church: the Bulgaria-Romania Annual Conference. Methodists in Estonia and the Slovak Republic have also indicated their desire to leave, and indications are that Methodists in the Eurasia Episcopal Area will follow suit.

Yet what is perhaps most remarkable about European Methodism is not that some are leaving but that many are staying, including those with differing views on sexuality, different theological emphases, different languages, and different cultures. Such unity has been forged by carefully negotiated compromises built on a long history of connectional relationships.

Yet such arrangements remain fragile and will require continued effort and goodwill to maintain. If Europeans succeed in this task, however, it will serve as an example to United Methodists elsewhere.

Worldwide: What will the focus of legislative conversations for 2024 be?
Because the 2024 General Conference is the delayed 2020 General Conference, all legislation initially submitted for 2020 remains in effect. Yet, much has changed in the 4-5 years since that legislation was written, and new, additional legislation may still be submitted. That means that the legislative priorities for General Conference 2024 remain very much up in the air.

On some level, it will be impossible to tell what the focus for General Conference 2024 will be until shortly before or even at the General Conference.

But on another level, groups wanting to shape the conversations leading into 2024 have an incentive to begin pushing their legislative packages (existing or to-be-submitted) much sooner. While there is the possibility of significant shifts in attention in the intervening months, the first group to really bring attention to a proposal can help set the terms of the debate. The supporters of the Christmas Covenant continue to advocate for that legislative package. Others may join the debate to promote their own hoped-for reforms later this spring.

The Contemporary Challenges of Leadership: Coalition-Building as a Way Forward

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.

My past two posts have explained how The United Methodist Church is an increasingly complex system beset by a wicked problem and how, given those conditions, leadership is an attractive approach to addressing the problems of the denomination. Leadership alone, however, is a flawed solution given the complexity of the system and the limitations of knowledge and power possessed by a single individual within the system, even if that person is a leader within the system.

As this post will explain, though, while leadership may be a flawed solution, that does not leave us without hope. An approach focused on coalition-building, collaboration, and communication can be effective in effecting change in complex systems. Moreover, when leadership is oriented towards contributing to such an approach along with larger groups (rather than towards the top-down exercise of power by an individual), coalition-building, collaboration, and communication can strengthen and enhance the exercise of leadership.

All of this has implications for The United Methodist Church as it moves towards the next stage of service to which God is calling it.

Coalitions, collaboration, and communication
The problem with a leadership-focused approach to the wicked problems of complex systems is that the complexity of the systems exceeds the ability of any one individual to understand how the system works and the ability of any one individual to control the system. The solution to this limitation is to locate understanding and control of the system not with any one individual but with coalitions of individuals and groups working together to address the problems of the system.

Having more individuals committed to finding solutions means more collective knowledge of the system, both of its individual parts and of how those parts interact with one another. It also means a greater ability to influence the system via more pressure points. This greater collective knowledge and greater influence means a greater ability to effectively address the problems of the system and therefore a greater chance of success in doing so.

Collective action does not just happen, though. It must be organized through the slow, labor-intensive work of coalition building. Coalition building involves getting groups to agree to work together on a common problem or towards a common goal. Coalition members do not need to agree on all issues. Indeed, successful coalitions will likely include members who disagree, perhaps quite passionately, on issues other than the central motivating issue of the coalition.

Thus, three central tasks in building coalitions are identifying a salient issue that is shared among different groups, facilitating trust building among groups that will disagree on some issues, and persuading groups to commit to work together on shared interests despite their disagreements elsewhere.

The success of such work requires participants in the coalition to be able to hold tensions, accept imperfection, and even to forgive one another. It also requires a collective sense of responsibility for the problems of the system. Blame works against fostering such a collective sense of responsibility, since it assigns responsibility for the problems of the system outside those casting blame and is thus an excuse for not acting oneself.

Once a coalition has begun to form, it proceeds by collaborative action. Collaborative action is action taken by different players and often in different forms towards a common goal. Collaborative action does not mean that all coalition members do the same thing. Indeed, the most effective coalitions employ a diversity of strategies to realize their goals, which allows a diversity of participants to contribute their skills and energy in a diversity of ways. While coordination is necessary, conformity is a sign of the weakness of a coalition, not its strength.

Throughout the whole process, communication is an essential. Communication is necessary to bring coalition members together. It is necessary to identify the salient issues and goals of the coalition. It is necessary to build trust among members. It is necessary to coordinate the disparate actions of members. It is necessary to measure progress towards goals. Communication is the one thing absolutely necessary for successful coalitions.

Like collaborative action, communication involves contributions by many people. The more that information sharing can happen through a network rather than through a hub-and-spoke model of central gatekeeping, the more easily information can be shared throughout a coalition and therefore the more effective the coalition will be.

Those convening, promoting, coordinating, and communicating coalitions need not be formally recognized leaders within the system. It is possible to leverage personal connections, charisma, or other resources to engage disparate groups to come together around a common issue. Formal leadership does not disqualify one from doing such work, but neither does it automatically compel one to engage in such work. Thus, an approach that is based around coalitions, collaboration, and communication is not necessarily one based on leadership.

Yet, leaders can use the power and information at their disposal to contribute to coalitions. This requires leaders to acknowledge their own limitations and prioritize common objectives over personal status or control. Even when formal leaders participate in coalitions, the primary responsibility for progress must remain with the coalition as a whole, not with any leader or leaders associated with the coalition.

The Reform and Renewal Coalition
Arguably one of the most effective political forces within The United Methodist Church since its inception has been the Reform and Renewal Coalition. It is not a coincidence that this has been a coalition, not the work of a single organization, a single leader, or even a handful of leaders.

Instead, the Reform and Renewal Coalition has brought together multiple Traditionalist organizations and individuals with overlapping but distinct foci, but all aligned together around issues of Traditionalist understandings of marriage and theology. These groups and their members have worked separately but in coordination towards agreed upon goals. A variety of means of communication including publications, personal networks, and conferences and meetings have allowed communication to flow throughout a Traditionalist network, thereby facilitating the work of the coalition.

There have been prominent figures associated with the Reform and Renewal Coalition, but the Coalition has had no one single leader. Some bishops have been supportive, but most of the identified leaders are not people with significant formal positions of power within the regular structures of the denomination. Instead, the Reform and Renewal Coalition has operated through coalition-building, collaboration, and communication.

While Progressives and Centrists are likely to see the Reform and Renewal Coalition as contributing to rather than solving the problems of the denomination, that should not detract from recognizing the coalition’s success on its own terms.

Traditionalists have been less well coordinated recently, mostly because of differing ideas about what they should do next in the wake of General Conference 2019 and the launch of the Global Methodist Church. These varying opinions have deprived the coalition of its focus and its coordination and therefore its effectiveness. But these challenges are just further proof of the importance of well-functioning coalitions for success – policy success comes not from one’s ideology but from one’s organization.

Implications for the future UMC
With the exit of many Traditionalist congregations and individuals from the UMC, the splintering of Traditionalist plans, and the shuttering of some of its components (such as the Confessing Movement), it is clear the Reform and Renewal Coalition will no longer continue to dominate United Methodist polity debates in the same way they have historically. What is not yet clear, though, is whether a new coalition will emerge among those who choose to stay UMC that will set the direction for United Methodism for the next several decades.

Whether or not such a coalition emerges will likely depend on whether groups and leaders from disparate parts of the denomination can come together around concrete policy goals. Although the goals of the Reform and Renewal Coalition were primarily related to sexuality, the goals of a future coalition need not be. Other issues such as decolonizing the church, regionalization and contextualization, evangelism, or something else could prove galvanizing for a new coalition. Whether or not an effective coalition emerges depends on many things, but it starts with the identification of a salient issue.

To bring this argument back to its beginning, the recently elected bishops will certainly make an impact on The United Methodist Church, especially in the episcopal areas they serve. But they will have little ability to set the future direction of the denomination on their own. Instead, what will be more significant than any of the recently held elections is what sorts of coalitions emerge to direct The United Methodist Church into the next stage of its life.

Bishops may contribute to such coalitions, but it will take a broad sense of responsibility for the future of the denomination, a commonly agreed-upon set of issues or goals, a willingness to work together among disparate groups, some of whom will disagree on some issues, and extensive communication among a network of partners to really set the direction for the future of the denomination.

The Contemporary Challenges of Leadership: Unrealistic Expectations

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.

In my last post, I argued that The United Methodist Church is a complex system (more so than when it was created) facing a wicked problem. I indicated that this fact has implications for the role of leadership in the UMC, in particular that of bishops. In this post, I will argue that the nature of complex systems make leadership an attractive but ultimately flawed solution to the wicked problems that beset complex systems.

Leadership as an Attractive Solution
By their very nature, complex systems are difficult to control (since inputs do not lead straightforwardly to outputs), and wicked problems are difficult to solve. Furthermore, since complex systems include many actors, most of them will have very little influence over the system as a whole, making it even more difficult for most people to get the results they want from the system. Therefore, many people feel powerless in the face of complex systems, for instance, the global economy, big businesses, or government bureaucracies.

In such a situation, selecting the right leader for the system becomes seen by many as an attractive solution to the problems plaguing the complex system.

Selecting the right leader seemingly simplifies the complex system and its complex problems, and this is its main attraction. We just need to find the right person, and they will solve the problems of the system, goes the thinking.

Rather than needing to understand the complex system itself (which is often beyond the ability of even experts, let alone regular individuals), it is only necessary to understand the (usually limited) choices for leadership candidates. Rather than needing to figure out how to exert influence on the system (which is difficult for well-organized coalitions, let alone individuals), it is only necessary to use one’s power to vote for a leader.

All the better, this line of reasoning often goes, if the leader selected is somewhat antithetical to the system, if they promise to “shake things up,” create “disruption,” or “smash things.” And in order to do that destructive work, the leader should be given as much power as possible. The system is obviously not producing what it should, so doesn’t it need to be shaken up by a strong leader?

This leadership-focused solution to systemic problems also fits with cultural emphases from various cultures, whether it is Americans’ cult of personality or Africans’ tradition of “big man” leadership. The notion of a leader as a hero or savior is deeply rooted within many cultural traditions.

The wave of rising authoritarianism that has swept the globe over the past decade is an expression of how leadership is an attractive solution to complex problems. In many different cultural and political settings, people have elected leaders who have billed themselves as strongmen (and the gendered term is intentional) capable of bending the system to give their voters what they want.

Whether or not United Methodists support such political authoritarian figures (and probably some but not most do), the temptation to look to leaders as rescuers from the morass of wicked problems that bogs down the complex system of The United Methodist Church is still there.

Leadership as a Flawed Solution
But while leadership may be an attractive solution to the wicked problems of complex systems, it is also a flawed solution. Of course, one could point to the moral, ethical, and democratic failings frequently exhibited by authoritarian leaders, but even setting those significant concerns aside, there are real reasons why leadership alone is not a good way to address the problems of complex solutions.

First, while participants in a complex system may be eager to shift responsibility for problem solving onto a leader because of their own limited knowledge of and influence over that system, they often significantly overestimate leaders’ knowledge of and influence over the system.

Complex systems are difficult for leaders to understand, too, even given their additional vantage over and information about the system. Indeed, it is hard for any one person to really have a feel for all parts of a system and how they interact. Leadership in a complex system requires knowledge of many disparate areas of policy and procedure. Moreover, leaders are subject to the same limitations of wisdom, knowledge, and judgment as anyone else. And when leaders are sometimes chosen because they are from outside the system or its current elite, this can limit their understanding of the system even further.

Moreover, because complex systems are characterized by nonlinear relationships and by many different actors with many different motivations, complex systems are difficult to control, even for leaders. There are many opportunities for unintended consequences or for people to resist and obstruct what a leader wants to accomplish. While it many be easy for leaders to exert control over central elements of a complex system, that does not mean that directives will flow completely and easily to all components of a system, especially those farther from the centers of power.

These observations are true of bishops in the UMC just as much as other leaders of complex systems. There are many different areas of responsibility for bishops, and it is difficult to be an expert in all of them. Bishops are often limited in their knowledge of what is happening outside of their episcopal area or jurisdiction. Their powers are geographically and constitutionally limited. District superintendents, pastors, congregations, and agencies all have independent decision-making authority. Bishops can influence, but they cannot completely dictate. Even in Africa where bishops are held in higher regard, they are not complete dictators, and things can and do happen outside bishops’ control.

There are also limitations in the relationship between leaders and followers. The many-faceted nature of issues in complex systems means that for any given leader and any given follower, there will almost always be points of disagreement between them. While in some instances, followers adjust their views to reflect those of their leaders, in other instances, followers are left to decide how to relate to leaders whose work they very much support in some instances and very much oppose in others.

Furthermore, conditions including polarization, distrust, and anger at institutions can make people even less willing to follow leaders. If some group of followers sees a leader as “not my leader,” then they will work to oppose or undermine the work of that leader, further limiting the leader’s power. Even if loyal followers expect leaders to quickly deliver results on all issues, leaders can quickly go from heroes to villains if they fail to perform to what may be unrealistically high standards.

A Methodist Example
To see the attraction and the failure of leadership as a solution to the problems of complex systems, look at The United Methodist Church’s experience with the Commission on a Way Forward. The commission was formed after General Conference delegates, unable to solve the wicked problem of The United Methodist Church themselves, took the unprecedented action of asking the bishops to step in and intervene.

However, the bishops’ ability to do so was quite limited. They were able to convene a group to make recommendations to General Conference, but the bishops themselves were neither able to propose solutions nor able to adopt solutions proposed by others. The size of the group was even limited by financial calculations by GCFA beyond the bishops’ control. Moreover, no bishop has a complete understanding of the entire United Methodist Church and could not know in advance how the work of the Commission on a Way Forward would be received or what unexpected reactions or counteractions it would provoke.

Then, once the commission was formed, it became the target of criticism over a host of issues ranging from its composition to how its work was conducted. Such criticism reflected some genuine concerns, but it also reflected the polarization and lack of trust in the denomination. The commission produced a recommendation, which the bishops then revised, and then the recommendations from the commission and the bishops were rejected by General Conference in a decision that exacerbated rather than solved the wicked problem of the denomination.

In the case of the Commission on a Way Forward, appealing to leadership patently failed as a means to address the wicked problem of the complex system of The United Methodist Church. But I don’t think that was because the bishops made mistakes along the way. They may have made mistakes and thereby worsened the chances of the commission succeeding, but the basic problem was with the nature of the system and the limitations of a leadership-focused solution to its problems.

Fortunately, there are other potential solutions to the problems that beset complex systems. In my next post, I will look at communication and collaboration as potential solutions, ones that can improve the quality of leadership in addition to addressing problems.

The Contemporary Challenges of Leadership: Complex Systems

Over the past month, The United Methodist Church has been focused on episcopal elections in the United States, Europe, and the Philippines. United Methodists have faithfully prayed and strategically maneuvered to elect bishops that they hope will lead them into a bright new future for the denomination.

To be sure, episcopal leadership does matter, and new bishops will indeed make a difference for events in the denomination over the next several years.

Yet it is important not to underestimate the challenges that bishops face in exerting effective leadership. These challenges originate not from any shortcomings in bishops individually or collectively but rather from the nature of The United Methodist Church as a complex system and the limits of leadership as a strategy for addressing wicked problems that beset such complex systems.

I will examine these challenges in this and two following articles. In this article, I will describe the nature of The United Methodist Church as a complex system. In the next article, I will explain why leadership is an attractive but usually unsuccessful solution to complex problems. In a third article, I will suggest that communication and collaboration is usually a more effective solution than one focused exclusively on leadership and a strategy that can lead to more effective leadership.

Complex systems
There are many ways to define complex systems, which are an area of research in several academic fields, but one commonly agreed-upon feature is “nonlinearity”: complex systems are not characterized by simple cause-and-effect relationships.

Instead, chaotic, surprising, or unintended consequences are a frequent feature, and effects are usually the result of multiple causes, which in even slightly different combinations may produce wildly different effects. Sometimes, such surprising results occur because seemingly distant (physically or otherwise) components are connected, so action in one place produces effects in another place far removed, thus obscuring lines of cause and effect.

Complex systems are also defined by their “complexity,” that is, they involve many different components interacting with each other in multiple different ways. Cities are a common example of complex systems, so for example, a city’s manufacturing industry and its government may interact on issues of taxation, regulation, business incentives, employment, campaigning, and more. All of these are different matters or issues around which the two sets of actors can interact.

System complexity is also a consequence of different actors within the system having different (and sometimes competing) interests. Thus, the various actors in the system don’t all pull in the same direction but instead sometimes work collaboratively and sometimes work at cross purposes with one another. Moreover, collaboration or antagonism may be determined by the matter or issue at hand.

Finally, different actors within the system all have limited influence over it. Usually, this is because decision-making is widely distributed, so all actors have agency to pursue their own interests, which as noted, will diverge from others at points. Especially in the era of modernity, many processes of life are automated or rule-bound, so individual actors have limited influence over those processes, thus further reducing their influence over complex systems as a whole.

In complex systems, problems are often wicked problems; that is, they are difficult to define and difficult solve, with no single, clear solution. Because of the diversity of interests, there are different ways to frame or understand a problem, even if there is common agreement that something in the system is not right. Because of unclear cause-and-effect relationships and unintended consequences, it is very difficult to intervene in complex systems to effectively address problems, even if a common definition of a problem exists. Wicked problems can often only be mitigated rather than solved.

The UMC as a complex system
The United Methodist Church has become an increasingly complex system over the past 50+ years for several reasons.

There are approximately the same number of actors within the system as when it was created (~12 million members in 1968; ~12.5 million members now). However, their distribution and the ways they interact have changed.

In 1968, the overwhelming majority of members were in the United States. Now, only half are in the United States, a quarter are in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and another quarter are in a myriad of other countries. This increases not only cultural and linguistic diversity but also the chances that one component within the system will act without knowledge of another component, multiplying the possibilities for unintended consequences.

Moreover, the ways in which those members interact have changed. There are more ways for actors to relate to one another – not only through official church conferencing, but also through caucuses, coalitions, independent events and networking, church-to-church (or church-to-conference) partnerships, etc. Most of these new forms of interaction are outside of the official structures of the denomination (and therefore not controlled by them).

The number and intensity of divergent interests within the system has increased. Certainly, the increased geographic and cultural diversity just noted has resulted in more divergent interests. But such heightened divergence is evident within the United States as well. When the UMC was launched in 1968, the Traditionalist movement had just begun to form two years earlier. Now, Traditionalist, Progressive, and Centrist are well-established and often antagonistic competing interests in the denomination.

The limits on individual actors have also increased over the course of the denomination’s lifetime. Even with some unfilled US episcopal areas, the number of current active bishops (59) is nearly 50% more than when the denomination was formed in 1968 (41 bishops), one indication of widely distributed decision making. The Book of Discipline has increased by 50% as well, an indication of the increasingly rule-bound nature of many processes in the denomination.

Given the increasing complexity of the United Methodist system, it is perhaps no surprise then that the UMC has a wicked problem. Bob Phillips has written about the UMC and its wicked problem in Methodist Review. One need not accept his Traditionalist solution of denominational division to learn from his application of this term to the UMC. While different groups within the church would frame the problem within the UMC very differently, almost everyone would agree that there is some sort of problem besetting the denomination.

And if there is a problem, then there is a need for a solution. The next post in this series will look at why leadership is an attractive but usually flawed solution to the wicked problems of a complex system.

Recommended Reading: Philippines Episcopal Elections

The Philippines Central Conference met last week primarily to elect new bishops for the central conference. Bishops in the Philippines are elected for four-year terms, with the possibility of re-election, though all current bishops in the Philippines had announced their intention to retire at the end of their current (pandemic lengthened) terms.

After 23 rounds of balloting, delegates to the conference elected Rev. Rodel M. Acdal (on the 6th round), Rev. Ruby-Nell Estrella (on the 20th round), and Rev. Israel Painit (on the 23rd round) as the new bishops for the central conference. Rev. Estrella is the first woman elected bishop for the Philippines.

Rev. Acdal is President of John Wesley College in the Philippines. He will serve the Baguio Episcopal Area. A candidate profile is available here.

Rev. Estrella is Treasurer of the Philippines Central Conference. She will serve the Manila Episcopal Area. A candidate profile is available here.

Rev. Painit is a Global Ministries missionary and country director in Southeast Asia. He will serve the Davao Episcopal Area. A candidate profile is available here.

You can read more about the candidates from the Baguio Episcopal Area and more about episcopal elections generally from UM News.

Recommended Reading: Central and Southern Europe Episcopal Election

The Central and Southern Europe Central Conference has been meeting the past several days to elect a successor to Bishop Patrick Streiff, along with other business, including discussions about the future of the central conference. After 4 rounds of balloting, delegates to the conference elected Rev. Stefan Zürcher as the new bishop for the central conference. Rev. Zürcher is the District Superintendent for the Northwest Switzerland District and a member of the UMC Connectional Table. Rev. Zürcher was the leading candidate in the first ballot and throughout, though 11 candidates received votes initially, and Rev. Andrea Brunner-Wyss received strong support into the final ballot as well.

Up Next: Episcopal Elections in Central and Southern Europe and the Philippines

For many United Methodists in the United States, attention was focused this past week on episcopal elections in the five US jurisdictions. Although those elections are now completed, that is not the end of United Methodist episcopal elections this year. Up next are elections in the Central and Southern Europe Central Conference and the Philippines Central Conference.

The Central and Southern Europe Central Conference will meet November 16-20 in Basel. The Central Conference will elect one bishop, with balloting to begin on Thursday, Nov. 17 and continue to Friday, Nov. 18 if necessary (full agenda here). Unlike in the United States, the Central and Southern Europe Central Conference does not provide information about publicly declared candidates prior to the election, a function of its smaller size with more personal connections and differing cultural understandings.

In addition to its episcopal election, the central conference will also discuss its round table process to address the future of the central conference in the light of varying views of sexuality and departures from the denomination (for more, see this article and this fact sheet, both in German).

Next, the Philippines Central Conference will meet November 24-26 to elect three bishops. All three episcopal seats in the Philippines are up for vote in every episcopal election. There are numerous declared candidates for the episcopacy in the Philippines, and the National Association of Filipino American United Methodists and the Philippines Central Conference College of Bishops organized candidates forums so that Filipino United Methodists can learn more about those candidates. Videos of full forums are available here: [1], [2], and [3], and excerpts from each of the candidates are available in this playlist. 

Note the role of the US-based National Association of Filipino American United Methodists in organizing a candidates' forum for the Philippines. This is a clear indication that many Filipino American United Methodists still have strong ties to their home country and the church there. Episcopal elections always have implications beyond the boundaries in which candidates are elected, and in some instances, this is especially so.

On the African Bishops' Statement, Or, Defining Success in Blogging

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.

About a month ago, the Africa Colleges of Bishops released a statement denouncing the Africa Initiative and the WCA and, by implication, affirming their loyalty to the UMC. The statement lists the bishops present for its adoption and indicates support from other bishops not present. Bishop John Wesley Yohanna of Nigeria is the only active African bishop not in one of these two categories.

When the statement came out, I know that several regular readers of this blog were looking forward to see what we would publish about that statement. Perhaps some have been surprised that this blog has not addressed that statement until now.

A word of explanation is therefore in order, and it gets to not only the statement itself but the role that I hope this blog plays in the wider ecosystem of the UMC.

The tagline for UM & Global is "Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church." Under that tagline, I have tried to write, recruit, and highlight content that either relates to the UMC outside the United States and/or to mission, broadly defined. I am humbled that readers have responded by regularly tuning in to read the posts that I and others have written here.

Ultimately, though, as much as I am honored by and appreciate the dedicated readership of this blog, it is not an end unto itself. The goal is that there be "conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church." This site certainly serves as a venue for such conversations, but ultimately, it is my hope that those conversations will happen throughout denominational spaces. The goal is not that UM & Global become the premier place to have such conversations; the goal is that more such conversations take place, which requires them to happen in places other than on UM & Global.

UM & Global will ultimately be successful not by dominating the market for international analysis of the UMC but by growing that market to the point where we are just one small player (or even no longer a player) in that market. In missiology, they say that a good missionary works themselves out of a job. My goal for UM & Global is to work ourselves out of a job - to increase the interest in and capacity for talking about the international church such that UM & Global itself is no longer essential to that endeavor.

Thus, I am happy when other people and other venues report on, discuss, and analyze the global church. I myself am deeply dependent on UMNews for the fine work that their stable of international journalists do, and regular readers will have noted various collaborative projects between UM & Global and UMNews over the past couple years.

Similarly, I am deeply grateful for the work Cynthia Astle at United Methodist Insight does to give a place for voices from Africa and elsewhere throughout global Methodism to express themselves. I'm glad that Cynthia regularly publishes commentary by Lloyd Nyarota and others and stories about Nigeria.

So, when I am choosing what to focus on with UM & Global, the question for me is not necessarily, "What are the biggest stories going on in global Methodism?" It's more, "What stories about Methodism around the world are not getting the attention they deserve? What needs to be lifted up and highlighted that people might otherwise miss?"

Which brings us back to the African Colleges of Bishops' statement. That statement got a lot of attention, which it absolutely deserved. It was widely shared on social media. UMNews did a story on it the next day. The Africa Initiative released a response, which was also widely shared. Africa Voice of Unity released a statement in support of the bishops, which was shared as well. Rev. John Stephens invited Bishop Mande Muyombo on his podcast, where they talked about the statement (among other things - it's a good podcast episode and worth a watch). United Methodist Insight published a story and materials related to the fallout of the statement in Nigeria.

In other words, people paid quite a lot of attention to the African bishops' statement, listened to a variety of African perspectives on the statement, and discussed its meaning and implications. And all that happened without UM & Global writing anything. Success!

But for those of you who have read thus far, waiting to see whether I will actually say anything about the statement, here are my few contributions to the conversation that is going on throughout the church, as it should, and not just on this blog:

• I think the statement reflects the strong leadership of Bishop Nhiwatiwa, currently head of the African Colleges of Bishops. Bishop Nhiwatiwa is deeply loyal to the UMC and has previously indicated his desire for African United Methodists to make their own decisions.
• Tensions between the bishops and the Africa Initiative/WCA have long simmered. This statement certainly brings those tensions to a new height, but also indicates that the bishops feel like they have the strength to win that contest for influence.
• Some have wondered whether bishops who have previously been aligned with the Africa Initiative/WCA, especially Bishops Kasap and Quire, "really" supported the statement. The statement should be viewed in light of the African tradition of consensus decision-making. Bishops Kasap and Quire may not have been completely in favor of the gist of the statement, but they were unwilling to go against the consensus of the bishops as a whole. Bishop Yohanna probably felt more freedom to speak out against the statement because he was not present when that consensus was formed.
• As for what the statement means long-term, time will only tell, but the statement should be taken as a significant inflection point.

Those are my thoughts at least, and I expect and hope that others will have their own interpretations of this statement by the African bishops and will continue to interpret and discuss on their own future such statements as well.

5 UMC story lines to follow this fall

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.

Summer is winding down, and the fall looms before us. With the fall will likely come a series of new developments within The United Methodist Church (some already underway) related to major questions about the future of the denomination. Here are five such story lines to follow this fall.

US Disaffiliation

There have already been several recent developments in the increasingly acrimonious fight over disaffiliation from the UMC by congregations in the United States. There have been lawsuits and threats of lawsuits by those seeking to leave the UMC. The WCA has called on US Traditionalists to withhold at least some apportionments and to resume charges against those disregarding Book of Discipline provisions around gay ordination and gay marriage. Both those seeking to leave and those seeking to stay have been waging an information and PR campaign among local churches in the US, with those planning to remain in the UMC asserting that those leaving are spreading falsehoods.

Moreover, the Judicial Council just yesterday ruled on the use of Book of Discipline Paragraph 2548.2 as a means of disaffiliation. That paragraph allows the transfer of congregational property to another "evangelical denomination" with whom the UMC has a "comity agreement." Exiting Traditionalists would have preferred to use its provisions over those of Paragraph 2553, but the bishops requested a Judicial Council ruling on whether 2548.2 is applicable in this case. The Judicial Council answered that the paragraph only applies to property, not members, and only for denominations with which the UMC already has an General Conference-adopted agreement. This ruling precludes its use for transfer of congregations to the Global Methodist Church and represents a significant blow to Traditionalists.

In addition, many annual conferences have scheduled special sessions to act on requests for disaffiliation. These sessions will be a test of the numbers of departing congregations, the terms on which they will depart, and the atmosphere in which they will do so.

Plans for General Conference 2024

When the Commission on General Conference announced its decision to further postpone General Conference to 2024, it acknowledged that "the further postponement raises a number of additional questions not specifically addressed in The Book of Discipline 2016." The Commission left it up to the Judicial Council to determine "which preparations and processes are based on the postponed 2020 General Conference and which would need to be enacted should this be seen as a new 2024 General Conference."

Should that ruling come this fall, it will set the direction for the UMC relative to General Conference on issues such as which delegates will attend the next General Conference and what legislation will be before it, both questions that may well shape what happens at that meeting.

Proposals for the future of the UMC

With General Conference 2024 possibly coming into greater focus this fall and disaffiliation well underway, there is an opening for new proposals about the future of the denomination to emerge. In his address to the Council of Bishops earlier this week, Bishop Thomas Bickerton spoke of the UMC needing to pivot towards "a conversation about what it is we want and dream about as a church moving forward." Look for new proposals to emerge this fall from those intending to stay UMC about what they envision the denomination to look like beyond the current conflict over disaffiliation.

While some of these new proposals for the future of the denomination may come from episcopal leaders or US Centrists and Progressives, it is also quite likely (indeed, it should be expected) that leaders from the central conferences will contribute to this debate, even if it is just to reiterate the principles of regionalization embodied in the already-proposed Christmas Covenant.

Episcopal elections

There are episcopal elections currently scheduled for late this year in the United States and the Philippines. The results of these elections will be an indication of what sort of direction leaders from the US and the Philippines want to see the denomination take. Especially with new proposals for the future of the denomination likely to emerge earlier in the fall, episcopal elections will serve as a stand-in referendum on these various visions of the church.

European disaffiliation

Earlier this year, Methodists in Bulgaria became the first to leave en masse to join the Global Methodist Church. At the time, Bishop Patrick Streiff of the Central and Southern Europe Central Conference ruled that the vote by the Bulgaria-Romania Annual Conference to do so violated the Book of Discipline. The Judicial Council just released its ruling in the case: While the Council agreed that it did not have jurisdiction in this instance, members clearly expressed their opinion that Streiff had been right and that the Bulgaria-Romania Annual Conference had indeed disregarded the Book of Discipline.

The church in Bulgaria has already made its departure effective. What remains to be seen is what routes the churches in Romania and in Estonia, which has also voted to leave the denomination, will take. While both have indicated that they will leave, they are not doing so immediately. Romania expects to leave by the end of the year. Both have chosen to work with their supervising bishops to follow some sort of process. The question remains to be answered this fall what that process will look like.

The larger significance of questions about European disaffiliation is what sorts of precedents it will set that could be influential if branches of the church in Africa or other branches of the church in Europe choose to disaffiliate as well. Traditionalist African leaders have indicated that they will not leave before General Conference 2024, but it remains unclear what will happen at that point, and developments in Europe this fall may well have an influence on those decisions.

Recommended Reading: Africa Initiative Calls for Episcopal Elections

Following a meeting in Nairobi in May, the Africa Initiative released a statement last month that, among other things, calls for episcopal elections to be held this year. The several page document, which reflects discussions held at its Nairobi meeting, reiterates its opposition to any form of accommodation with those accepting of homosexuality, reiterates its disappointment in the further postponement of General Conference to 2024, and explains its invitation of leaders of the Global Methodist Church to present to the group as a form of open information sharing. It also reiterates support of the Protocol, though there are separate indications ([1], [2]) that there is some dissension within the Africa Initiative about the strategy of waiting for the Protocol to pass in 2024.

The most significant new development within the Africa Initiative statement is a call at the end to hold episcopal elections in the three African central conferences by the end of the year. The statement asserts that not holding such elections "would be considered by us as marginalization; and a gross denial of the rights of the UMC in Africa to exercise its spiritual democracy by electing its new episcopal leaders as will the jurisdictions in the United States."

The Africa Initiative's point about equality among the regions of the globe is certainly well taken. The episcopacy and episcopal elections do not function the same everywhere in the world, raising the question of whether that represents contextualization, inequality, or both.

There may, however, be additional motives for the Africa Initiative to push for episcopal elections. Three out of the four bishops set to retire in Africa are criticized within the Africa Initiative document for alleged mistreatment of African United Methodists aligned with US Traditionalists. Thus, pushing for episcopal elections may also be a way for the Africa Initiative to try to elect episcopal leadership that will treat its members more favorably.

The decision about whether to call episcopal elections in Africa ultimately rests with the central conference, in conversation with the African bishops themselves and international partners who typically support the meeting of African central conferences.

United Methodist bishops in global perspective

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. This piece originally appeared as a commentary on the United Methodist News Service site and is republished here with permission.

Last month, United Methodists announced plans to hold episcopal elections in both the United States and in the Philippines. But those watching carefully may have noticed some significant differences in the two announcements.

Convening jurisdictional conferences to elect bishops in the United States required a ruling of the Judicial Council and an act of the entire Council of Bishops, and it led to a further Judicial Council ruling. The decision to convene the Philippines Central Conference to elect bishops was made by the Philippines College of Bishops without the involvement of the Judicial Council or the entire Council of Bishops.

Why the difference?

Furthermore, the United States and the Philippines are not the only areas of the world where bishops are slated to retire or past previously announced retirement dates. Why haven’t episcopal elections been called yet in Africa or in Europe?

The answer to these questions is rooted in the origins of the episcopacy in the central conferences and connects to broader issues in global polity in The United Methodist Church.

The history of missionary bishops
Early in the various traditions that now comprise The United Methodist Church, all bishops were “general superintendents” of the church, elected by the General Conference. No bishop had sole responsibility for a specific annual conference or group of annual conferences. Instead, all bishops itinerated among the annual conferences according to a mutually agreed upon schedule.

Liberia, the first area of Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC) mission work outside North America, tested this system. Mission work in Liberia started in 1833 and by 1836, Liberia became a “missionary conference,” a new polity creation. The mission continued growing well, with a mix of white missionaries, Black missionaries and unordained local Black preachers leading the conference. Still, episcopal supervision for the mission became a major issue at the General Conference of 1852.

In response, Bishop Levi Scott was dispatched on a fact-finding trip to investigate how the denomination could best support the continued growth of the church in Liberia. It was the first time an American Methodist bishop had exercised episcopal supervision outside the territory of the United States. Among other activities, Bishop Scott ordained several indigenous preachers in Liberia.

One visit by a bishop did not settle the question of episcopal supervision, though, and in 1856, with the encouragement of both Bishop Scott and the Liberia Annual Conference, the Methodist Episcopal General Conference voted to allow the Liberia Annual Conference to elect a bishop whose jurisdiction would be “expressly limited to Africa.”

This decision was a significant departure from previous Methodist polity both in limiting the geographical scope of episcopal powers and in allowing a body other than General Conference to elect a bishop. It required amending the Third Restrictive Rule of the Methodist Episcopal Church Discipline. Some commentators in the church charged that it created a second class of bishops. Others believed it was necessary to provide episcopal supervision in a context that was far from and far different from the United States.

The plan was ratified by the annual conferences, and Liberia proceeded to elect Francis Burns, an African American missionary, as its missionary bishop in 1858 — the first Black Methodist bishop.

As Northern Methodists began to form other mission conferences elsewhere outside the United States in the latter half of the 19th century, they were incorporated into the pattern of itinerant superintendency in the United States. In 1864, the bishops and General Conference of the MEC agreed that a bishop from the United States would regularly travel to preside at sessions of mission conferences held outside the United States, a prospect that became much easier with the advent of steam travel.

The issue of episcopal supervision for missions outside the United States was hotly debated at Methodist Episcopal General Conferences in the 1870s and 1880s. In 1884, the General Conference itself — rather than the Liberia Annual Conference — elected William Taylor as a missionary bishop for Africa. Four years later, it elected James Thoburn missionary bishop for India and Malaysia. The move toward missionary bishops gained steam, and additional missionary bishops were elected by General Conferences through 1916.

The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, by contrast, would assign one or more of their bishops elected as general superintendents to reside overseas and supervise missionary work. That bishop might then later be re-assigned to supervise a portion of the church in the United States.

Different systems of episcopacy
In the 1920s, the MEC began phasing out the practice of missionary bishops. In 1928, it created an alternative: central conference bishops, elected by the central conferences and limited in episcopal powers to those central conferences. In essence, this was a return to the early form of missionary bishops created for Liberia. It recognized the desire for local autonomy in selecting leadership.

This new system required further amendment of the Third Restrictive Rule. However, the Committee on Judiciary (the predecessor of the Judicial Council) ruled that, with the new amendments, it was constitutional for General Conference to create a system of central conference bishops and further constitutional for central conferences to place additional requirements or limits on their bishops, including term limits, which did not exist for other Methodist Episcopal bishops.

This system of central conference bishops adopted by the MEC fit well with the ethos of episcopal regionalization that characterized the formation of The Methodist Church in 1939.

Due to regional and racial prejudices, the United States was carved into five geographic and one racial jurisdiction, which were given the authority to elect bishops who would then superintend within the boundaries of the jurisdiction that elected them. The MEC model of central conference bishops was continued in The Methodist Church. It was easy to see central conference bishops as analogous to jurisdictional bishops as leaders elected by and serving within a region of the church.

But this seeming analogy covers important distinctions between bishops elected by the jurisdictions and those elected by the central conferences, both historically and today. It took decades until central conference bishops were able to preside at General Conference and to participate regularly in the Council of Bishops. Early on, they were seen as a separate and, in most ways, secondary group of episcopal leaders.

Still today, differences exist between central conferences and jurisdictions when it comes to the timing and process of episcopal elections and the terms of episcopal service.

According to the church’s constitution (¶26), the Council of Bishops as a whole must set the date for jurisdictional conferences to meet and elect bishops. Central conferences can each determine their own date for meeting (¶30). The constitution further stipulates that episcopal elections happen “at such time and place as may be fixed by the General Conference for those elected by the jurisdictions and by each central conference for those elected by such central conference” (¶46).

This explains why the whole Council of Bishops needed to be involved in the call for jurisdictional elections this year, but not elections in the Philippines, and why some central conferences have called episcopal elections this year while others have not.

Once elected, the process for assigning bishops varies across the central conferences and jurisdictions.

The jurisdictions, the Philippines Central Conference and the Congo Central Conference all have multiple bishops who could be assigned anywhere in the region. The Germany Central Conference and Central and Southern Europe Central Conference have a single bishop who serves the entire central conference.

Most complicated are the Africa Central Conference, West Africa Central Conference, and Northern Europe and Eurasia Central Conferences, in which bishops are elected by the central conference, but elected from an episcopal area to serve in that episcopal area. There is no rotation of bishops. Thus, many delegates in these central conferences vote on episcopal candidates whom they know will not directly lead them.

There are also variations in the length of terms bishops serve. In the United States and Congo, bishops serve for life. In the Philippines, bishops serve four-year terms and may be reelected for multiple terms. In Europe and the rest of Africa, bishops are elected to an initial term of four or eight years and then reelected, either to serve an additional term or for life. In the Philippines and Europe, it is possible for an elder to serve as bishop for a while and then go back to serving as an elder, no longer being a bishop.

Contemporary implications
These differences in episcopal election, assignment and terms of service among central conferences and between the central conferences and the jurisdictions have implications for both ecclesiology and practical polity.

Theologically speaking, one might ask, for instance, whether a term-limited episcopacy conveys the same ecclesiological understanding of episcopacy as a life-term episcopacy. Such questions are especially relevant in ecumenical conversations. However, since many ecumenical conversations occur on the national level, they often proceed with limited consideration for the variations of episcopacy across The United Methodist Church internationally. One book-length report on U.S. Lutheran-United Methodist dialogue about episcopacy, for instance, made no mention of central conference bishops.

In terms of the practice of polity, the present struggles over episcopal elections show the advantages of contextualization and the dangers of United States presumptions of normativity in polity.

Initially, the central conferences and their bishops had a sort of second-class status in the denomination because they were treated as exceptions to the standard, which was set in the United States. But in the long term, the value of local leadership and local decision-making embodied in the tradition of central conference bishops has proven a boon in the present pandemic conditions. The central conferences have more flexibility because they can make their own decisions about the timing and circumstances of their episcopal elections. In the Philippines and Europe, this local flexibility and local decision-making is frequently employed for other purposes, too.

The United States, however, has long been treated as the norm in United Methodist polity. That means that provisions about jurisdictional episcopal elections, along with many other matters, have been tied directly to the church’s central institutions, including the General Conference and the Council of Bishops. Because the U.S. context was seen as normative, these central institutions could deal with U.S. concerns directly rather than delegating them to a subsidiary authority, as with the central conferences.

The problem in this setup for U.S. United Methodism, though, is that when the central institutions of the church don’t or can’t function — for instance, when General Conference is unable to meet because of a global pandemic — there is no subsidiary authority to make decisions that can be more flexible and respond to unforeseen circumstances.

U.S. United Methodism is hampered by the lack of recognition of its own status as a distinct context requiring regional decision-making on at least some matters.

Currently, this polity weakness is manifesting itself in episcopal elections. That particular problem seems to have been solved for the moment, thanks in large part to the Judicial Council’s willingness to grant flexibility in the context of the pandemic. But the same problem of the lack of a subsidiary authority to make decisions for the U.S. context is likely to lead to further problems down the road.

A global re-negotiation of separation?

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

As I wrote last week, US Centrists and Progressives recently publicly pulled their support of the Protocol in a move meant to send a message to US Traditionalists and US Institutionalists. US Centrists/Progressives would like the three groups to work together to create minimally expensive pathways for US Traditionalist congregations to exit the denomination by the end of 2023.

While many US Traditionalists would like to exit quickly and cheaply, some are committed to staying in the UMC until 2024 to push for the Protocol as a better alternative, in their eyes, to current exit provisions. US Institutionalists, on the other hand, would like to proceed with departures under current patchwork arrangements led by the bishops, while holding onto the possibility of the Protocol as a way to limit current conflicts. Thus, these three groups in the United States each have different policy objectives over the next two years.

It is possible that these different policy objectives could overlap sufficiently to allow a resolution of conflicts around disaffiliation within the US annual conferences. It is also possible that one or more of these groups could end up weak enough that their policy preferences do not ultimately matter. But more likely is that each group retains sufficient strength to continue to contest for its own position and that the differences in objectives and low level of trust among the three groups means that there is no (successful) attempt to resolve these conflicts in a mutually agreed upon way.

This opens the possibility of a General Conference in 2024 where not much happens because a large segment of the denomination remains stuck in conflict.

Moreover, even if the various US interests are able to reach agreement among themselves on how to handle disaffiliations in the United States, this does not resolve questions about disaffiliations outside the United States in what has become a uniquely international church split.

There is, however, a third possibility beyond a US-based settlement of terms and a failure to reach further agreement before General Conference 2024. That possibility is a newly negotiated global plan of separation. Such a plan would require participation by and likely leadership from United Methodists from the central conferences, most notably central conference bishops.

Such a third possibility remains remote, but not unimaginable. This piece will examine why this approach to resolving The United Methodist Church’s disaffiliation dilemmas might work and also why it probably won’t.

Why This Approach Might Work
The first reason why central conference bishops might be interested in leading negotiations for a new global plan of separation is that there are strong incentives in central conferences for creating such a plan. A global plan of disaffiliation would provide a means to resolve questions about disaffiliation in Africa, Europe, and the Philippines, and it would also potentially shield United Methodists from the central conferences from some of the conflict and dysfunction in the American branch of the church. Thus, a new round of global negotiations could allow Africans, Europeans, and Filipinos to achieve two policy objectives: resolve their own conflicts and protect themselves from US conflicts.

Europe is already experiencing the impacts of abrupt and piecemeal departures from the church. Traditionalist Africans have indicated that they intend to stay in the denomination until 2024, and Africans from both pro-UMC and pro-GMC parties are likely to be watching how disaffiliation plays out across Europe over the next two years. If it goes poorly, that increases their incentive for an orderly rather than patchwork approach to disaffiliation.

Second, while conflicts originating in the United States have spread to the rest of the United Methodist world, United Methodists from elsewhere are not intellectually and emotionally entrenched in those conflicts in the same ways that Americans are. This means that United Methodists from Africa, Europe, and the Philippines may have the flexibility to think creatively about solutions to conflict that are not apparent to United Methodists in the United States.

Indeed, there are indications from central conference bishops that they are already engaged in such innovative thinking. The European bishops have done a lot to think creatively and strategically about the future of the UMC. The Filipino bishops have strongly supported the Christmas Covenant as an innovative way to think about the future of connectionalism. The African bishops have indicated their desire to think for themselves about the future of the UMC.

Third, in several instances there are pre-existing relationships among central conference bishops that might allow for joint leadership and action across central conferences. Such joint action by central conference bishops has previously been apparent, for instance, in a joint statement on vaccinations and General Conference.

Fourth, an initiative to re-negotiate division that came from the central conferences would carry a moral weight that such an initiative from the United States would not. At a time when all branches of the church are paying at least lip service to acknowledging the legacies of colonialism in the church, it would be difficult for United Methodists in the United States to outright reject central conference leadership in calling for new negotiations without that seeming like an insistence on American supremacy in church matters. At a time when both the GMC and the continuing UMC are trying to make their case to fellow United Methodists around the world, such a charge of colonial attitudes would be damaging.

The final reason to think that such an initiative from the central conferences could succeed is that it did before. Bishop John Yambasu was in a unique position to call for negotiations in 2019 to address church conflict. But Bishop Nhiwatiwa or Bishop Alsted or, more likely, a group of central conference bishops working together could follow and expand upon the path set by Bishop Yambasu.

Why It Probably Won’t Work
There are strong reasons to think that if there is a re-negotiation of division, it would have to originate in the central conferences. But there are also strong reasons to think that such an initiative will not happen.

In the Philippines, all three current bishops will retire in half a year. That means that the window for them to exercise leadership on world-wide matters is small. Newly elected bishops might be interested in shaping the world-wide nature of the church, but they will also need to tend to local concerns as they settle into their new roles. Thus, Filipino/a bishops might play a supportive role in the next year, but they are unlikely to be the main source of initiative.

There are significant differences of opinion on the future of the UMC among the thirteen African bishops, and that is the main factor mitigating against African leadership on a re-negotiation of terms of division. African United Methodism is large and diverse, including multiple and often conflicting positions within it,  enough so that it would require a good deal of negotiation to come to agreement just within Africa, even without trying to bring in additional voices from around the world to reach a world-wide settlement. It might be to each African bishop’s advantage to try to resolve conflict locally and not search for a wider resolution.

A similar dynamic may be at play in Europe. Between disaffiliations currently happening in Europe and developing plans for managing conflicts and diversity of thinking within the branches of the church staying United Methodist, European leaders may feel that their own conflicts can be dealt with regionally and it is not their responsibility to try to solve conflicts in other regions. Moreover, Bishop Patrick Streiff may yet retire soon, leaving the state of European episcopal leadership up in the air.

Conclusion
Local efforts that resolve (or don’t) debates over division that play themselves out in primarily local ways may end up being both necessary and sufficient. An international re-negotiation of the future of the church remains unlikely. But if such a re-negotiation does happen, look for leadership to come from the central conferences. And if and when it does, it will be another sign that the future of the church in terms of ideas as well as membership lies not in the United States but elsewhere around the world.

Recommended Reading: Filipino United Methodists Plan Episcopal Elections

The Philippines College of Bishops has announced a special session of the Philippines Central Conference, to be held Nov. 24-26. The main task of the conference will be to elect new episcopal leadership for the Philippines and to certify the retirement of all three current bishops. Additional central conference officers will also be elected. The Philippines had previously indicated an intention to hold episcopal elections before General Conference next meets in 2024, but this is the first instance in the UMC where the election of bishops has officially been announced in what is a world-wide need to replace retiring bishops. The fact that all three bishops will retire is significant as well. Whatever clergypersons are elected as bishops will collectively have a big responsibility for steering the Philippines Central Conference through a tumultuous time in the global church and in Filipino society.

What now? Episcopal elections

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. It is the first 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.

Much remains unknown in the wake of last week’s announcement that General Conference would again be postponed until 2024. Among the outstanding questions is whether new episcopal leadership will be elected for the church before General Conference meets in 2024. After previous postponements, the church’s bishops said that they would not hold new episcopal elections before what was, at that time, a planned General Conference in 2022.

Now that General Conference has been further delayed, it remains to be seen whether the bishops will revisit the decision to wait until after the next General Conference to hold elections. Some in the church believe that the denomination’s Book of Discipline does not allow for episcopal elections except following a General Conference, though others disagree.

Progressive United Methodists in the United States have been focused on electing new bishops for the US jurisdictions. 11 US United Methodist bishops have retired or taken on other assignments, leaving gaps that Progressives would like to fill with progressive episcopal candidates.

When to hold episcopal elections is, however, a global issue. Bishops in every central conference except Germany have indicated their intention to retire. In contrast to the United States, though, these bishops have all continued to serve extended terms because of the delay in General Conference.

Unlike in the United States, there is a much smaller pool of retired bishops that could be called back into service to temporarily replace newly retiring bishops, and connectional structures and the large load placed on bishops in the central conferences make it more complicated for bishops to serve nearby vacant episcopal areas in addition to their own, as has happened in the United States.

United Methodists around the world are discussing whether it is fair or prudent to ask bishops to continue to serve for yet another two years. Here is a review by area:

The Philippines
Filipino bishops are elected or re-elected every four years as a regular practice. Thus, the current delay would raise polity issues even if no bishops were planning to retire. The extension of the bishops’ terms after the first delay of General Conference generated significant debate within the Philippines Central Conference.

However, the Philippines may actually see a complete turnover of its bishops. Bishop Francisco is scheduled to retire according to age restrictions on episcopal service. (Filipino bishops cannot be re-elected after they turn 66.) Bishop Juan has also indicated his intention to retire. Bishop Torio has not announced his intention publicly, though he has been on medical leave in the past year.

Thus, the Philippines Central Conference Coordinating Committee had already discussed the possibility of holding episcopal elections in 2022, regardless of whether General Conference would meet or not. The announced delay of General Conference until 2024 will almost certainly lead to further discussion about whether to go forward with episcopal elections in the Philippines.

Europe
Two European bishops had announced their intention to retire in 2020: Bishop Patrick Streiff of the Central and Southern Europe Central Conference and Bishop Christian Alsted of the Northern Europe and Baltic Episcopal Area of the Northern Europe and Eurasia Central Conference. Neither bishop is at the required retirement age for clergy.

After the second delay of General Conference was announced, Bishop Streiff shared that it took “a few days of discussion and prayer” for he and his wife to agree to his further extending his episcopal service. In a meeting last fall, the Executive Committee of the Central and Southern Europe Central Conference noted that, “Should there be another postponement, this could also extend Bishop Patrick Streiff's term of service once again.” They also reported that “the Working Group [on] Episcopacy has been given the task of working with the bishop to examine options for relieving him of his duties and, if necessary, to initiate them.” While it is unclear what those options may entail, convening a special session of the central conference to elect a successor could be among them.

The Northern Europe and Eurasia Central Conference Council had previously discussed whether to call a special session of the Central Conference for the sake of holding episcopal elections. At a meeting last spring, the Council unanimously decided not to proceed with a special session and instead to wait to hold episcopal elections until after the next session of General Conference (at the time expected for 2022). This further delay may prompt the Central Conference Council to revisit that decision.

Africa
Bishops in all three African central conferences have announced their intention to retire. Bishop Boni of the Cote d’Ivoire Episcopal Area in the West Africa Central Conference, Bishop Unda of the East Congo Episcopal Area in the Congo Central Conference, and Bishop Quipungo of the East Angola Episcopal Area and Bishop Nhiwatiwa of the Zimbabwe Episcopal Area in the Africa Central Conference have all indicated their intentions to retire. Some of these episcopal leaders are at or approaching the mandatory retirement age for United Methodist clergy.

Moreover, Bishop Yambasu of the Sierra Leone Episcopal Area in the West Africa Central Conference died tragically in 2020, creating a vacancy in that episcopal seat which is temporarily being filled by retired Bishop Warner Brown of the United States.

The African central conferences face several complicating factors in the decision about whether to elect bishops before the General Conference meets in 2024.

The first complication is that due to the cost and difficulty involved in the logistics of intra-Africa travel and the need for translation in the West Africa and Africa Central Conferences, holding central conference meetings in Africa is more challenging. Such central conferences usually occur with some level of financial and logistical support from the global church. It would be more difficult for an African central conference to act unilaterally.

The second complication is the plan to add five episcopal areas in Africa and redraw the boundaries of the central conferences. If this plan is passed at the General Conference now scheduled for 2024, it will significantly change the politics of episcopal elections in Africa.

Compounding these possible changes in 2024 is the announced intention of several African bishops to join the Global Methodist Church upon its formation. There are significant questions about how disaffiliation can play out in Africa (as a future post will examine), but such disaffiliations could further alter the composition of central conferences.

Thus, some African leaders may feel it is better to wait until 2024 to hold episcopal elections, while others may want to press forward with elections under the current, known set up.

In this context, it is noteworthy that United Methodists in Sierra Leone proceeded with the process of nominating an episcopal candidate to replace the deceased Bishop Yambasu. The annual conference took this act even after learning about the further delay of General Conference until 2024, an indication that they would like to proceed with episcopal elections before then.

A Global View
The specific circumstances around whether or not to hold episcopal elections vary across the United States, Africa, the Philippines, and Europe. However, there is a significant incentive for the Council of Bishops to decide upon a common approach across all jurisdictions and central conferences. Whether or not the Book of Discipline allows for such elections is a murky question. A joint decision that applies to all areas of the church will carry more weight than if each region makes its own plans.