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.

The Central Conferences and Current UMC Politics

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.

United Methodists are anxiously waiting this week to learn whether General Conference will meet this year in August, or whether it will be again postponed until 2024. The Commission on General Conference met last Thursday to make a decision and promised an announcement within a week.

As we wait, it is worth taking a moment to reflect on how recent events have revealed the ways in which United Methodists from the central conferences have become central to current UMC politics.

The basic question behind whether General Conference will happen this year or not is whether Central Conference delegates can participate in sufficient numbers to make a 2022 General Conference a acceptably representative body for the church as a whole.

While there are differences of opinion as to how much participation is necessary and how to best facilitate that participation, pretty much all voices in the debate about General Conference recognize that at this point in the denomination's development, it is impossible to fairly make decisions without the inclusion of United Methodists from outside the United States. The central conferences are a crucial part of the UMC's body politic.

Whenever the General Conference does meet again, one of the major pieces of legislation it will consider is the Christmas Covenant. This legislative package, designed to regionalize the governance of The United Methodist Church, was developed and submitted by United Methodists from outside the United States. It is the first major legislation in the denomination to originate in this way.

Whatever the fate of the Christmas Covenant legislation will be, it is a sign that United Methodists from outside the United States are committed to shaping the agenda of the denomination, not just content to comment on an agenda developed by groups within the United States.

Recent debates about both whether to hold General Conference and the legislation before it have revealed a diversity of opinions among General Conference delegates from outside the United States. United Methodists from Africa both decried and lauded the WCA's vaccine mandate. United Methodists from Africa, the Philippines, and Europe wrote and signed on to letters both asking for General Conference to be held and asking for it to be delayed. United Methodists from around the world have spoken for and against the Protocol and the Christmas Covenant.

It's not just that Europeans have different opinions than Africans. There are differences within regions too. The Africa Initiative and the Africa Voice of Unity have different opinions. Not all Nigerians agree on the church's future. There are diversities of opinions across continents, between countries, and within national branches of the UMC.

United Methodists from the central conferences are not just raising a voice within the denomination; they are raising many voices, which are saying a variety of things about what the denomination should do and be. Indeed, the diversity of positions taken by United Methodists around the world show the fallacy of referring to "the central conferences" as a single entity (as this article admittedly does).

All of these developments represent a departure for The United Methodist Church. For decades, United Methodists outside the United States were an afterthought for those within the United States.

Then, when US United Methodists began to recognize the significance of General Conference delegates from the central conferences, they frequently treated those delegates as votes to be wrangled on whatever US-defined matters were before the General Conference. Too often, these votes were also seen as a bloc, or at least delegates from each continent were viewed as a bloc. How will Africans vote on such-and-such an issue, US United Methodists wondered?

Recent developments have shown that the time in which US United Methodists can think in this way is over. Not only do such views betray colonialist attitudes and assumptions on the part of US United Methodists, they do not reflect the realities of the denomination as it now is. United Methodists from Africa, the Philippines, and Europe are asserting their views and shaping debates about the denomination, as they should.

These are necessary developments. For a variety of theological, ethical, practical, and demographic reasons, the United Methodist Church can no longer afford to be a US-dominated denomination. It must learn to live into a new reality as a multinational, multicultural entity with a variety of contributions and perspectives from around the world shaping it.

Fortunately for us all, United Methodists from the central conferences--that is, from many countries and cultures in Africa, from throughout the Philippines, from a variety of contexts in Europe--are leading the way into this future.

Regionalization Would Have Prevented Some Problems with Delaying General Conference 2020

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

The General Conference that was scheduled to meet in May 2020 has already been delayed once and may be forced to be delayed a second time or transition to an alternative technology-mediated format. There have been a variety of challenges associated with these postponements, from the administrative to larger questions about the future of the denomination.

At this point, the denomination must find a way forward from this situation in which it finds itself. Yet it is worth point out that greater regionalization of the denomination would have prevented some problems stemming from delaying General Conference. The possibility of a church split in the United States best illustrates how regionalization could have reduced the challenges of delaying General Conference.

One of the major pieces of legislation before General Conference, whenever it next meets, is the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. This proposal, which is the result of mediated negotiation among mostly US United Methodist leaders from across the theological spectrum, would pave the way for the exit of Traditionalist churches with a $25 million payment to help found a new denomination. Traditionalist churches in the United States have been increasingly restive to leave the denomination in the fallout of General Conference 2019, when it became clear that Centrists and Progressives would not abide by the provisions of the Traditional Plan passed at that event.

Even amid the pandemic, Traditionalists remain focused on passing the Protocol in 2021, despite questions about whether and how General Conference will meet. They have even suggested that General Conference should convene just to take up the single issue of the Protocol. Yet the longer it is until General Conference meets, the more time there is for the negotiated consensus behind the Protocol to collapse or challenges to come from other corners, such as the African bishops.

The challenge, of course, is that passing the Protocol requires General Conference to meet, since there is no polity structure for the United States capable of implementing the Protocol within the United States, and there are numerous logistical challenges to bringing together delegates from around the world, either in person or digitally, to implement the Protocol globally.

If, however, there was a regional structure that had the ability to make some budgetary, policy, and legal decisions for the UMC in the United States, that body could potentially take up the issue of church separation in the United States. A special meeting of a US regional structure could have provided for such separation, satisfying Traditionalists' calls for a speedy departure, even if larger questions about the global connection remained.

While a schism may extend to the entire global connection, the greatest pressure for a legal and financial separation comes from within the United States. Since the United States funds 99% of the denomination's budget, it might have been possible to arrange a payout within the United States alone. And the logistical and health questions surrounding a United States-only meeting are much easier to handle than the international meeting that is General Conference.

Of course, such a regional structure does not currently exist. But it could.

The Christmas Covenant, the first major legislative package originating in the central conference, would create a system of regionalization within the UMC that would allow regional contexts, including the United States, greater flexibility in handling their own missional and administrative affairs.

It is too late for such a system of regionalization to mitigate the issues associated with delaying General Conference 2020. Passing the Christmas Covenant is not necessary to pass the Protocol, if indeed the latter does pass.

But it is not too late to implement a system of regionalization to give the church greater flexibility to adapt to the next crisis facing one of its branches. The Christmas Covenant represents one opportunity to do so.

A Primer on UMC Assets: Challenges in Dividing Assets

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.

This post further explores the topic of dividing general church assets in the event of a division within The United Methodist Church. As indicated in my previous post, there are a variety of ways to define general church assets, and these different definitions are not just actuarial but reflect differing political and policy objectives. Moreover, there is an important distinction between General Conference designating future revenue to go to groups departing the denomination and General Conference asking the agencies to part with money that they already own as legal entities and have a fiduciary obligation to protect.

Within these big-picture questions about what “division of assets” actually means are a variety of equally significant procedural questions: Who negotiates the division of assets? What constitutes a fair share? And what claim do the central conferences have on general church assets?

In answering these questions, I will draw examples from the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation, the New Expressions Worldwide (NEW) Plan, the Next Generation UMC Plan, a proposal by the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA), and legislation from the Liberia Annual Conference. While those promoting the Next Generation UMC Plan and the WCA legislation have pledged to support the Protocol instead, those plans are still useful for illustrating some of the issues involved.

Let’s begin with the question of who negotiates. In the case of the Protocol, that question has already been answered – a team of 16 people, including bishops from around the world and representatives from most major advocacy groups in the US. Much of the debate over the Protocol has been about who was and was not part of that group of 16 people. I have read commentaries from people from a variety of theo-political and social settings arguing that the group negotiating the Protocol left out representatives of important groups – liberationists, Africans, US racial and ethnic minorities, young people, laypeople, etc. Those involved in the Protocol process have responded, in part, by pointing out that it is difficult to have successful negotiations with a group size much over a dozen.

This debate over the Protocol highlights a fundamental challenge to answering the question of who negotiates – how do you have a group that is sufficiently representative while also being small enough to yield successful negotiations?

A related challenge is shown in the NEW Plan, which calls for “equitable distribution of common assets,” overseen by a Transitional Council composed of 21 people. These 21 people include the President of the Council of Bishops and five representatives from each of four successor denominations – traditionalist, centrist, progressive, and liberationist. Yet these denominations are not likely to be the same size. It is quite possible that, under this plan, 200,000 Americans could have more representation than 3.5 million Congolese, if the former were a small liberationist denomination and the latter were part of a larger centrist or traditionalist denomination, along with others.

Thus, the challenge of determining who negotiates is compounded: How do you balance having a group of negotiators that is broadly representative of all parties with the desire to make sure all parties are proportionally represented?

The issue of membership leads to the question of what constitutes a fair share of assets. The Next Generation UMC plan calls for “Grants for New Denominational Expressions of Methodism” that would be based on the number of churches, the membership, and the amount paid in apportionments for groups departing the UMC. The WCA plan provides for the division of assets based solely on membership of the successor denominations. Both past contributions and membership could be seen as “fair” criteria, but they are likely to give different results.

Moreover, one challenge for any system of division based on membership is that it gives participants an incentive to report as high membership numbers as possible. Membership figures are notoriously tricky, even in the absence of such financial motivations. US pastors already have reason to report high membership to reflect well on themselves on dashboards. There are noted differences in understanding formal membership, both internationally and within the United States. Tying large amounts of money to membership increases the chance that numbers may not reflect on-the-ground reality and therefore may be less “fair.”

Interestingly, those involved with the Protocol have said that the $25 million for departing Traditionalists and $2 million for others did not reflect some magical “fair share” calculation but rather just a number they could all agree upon.

Finally, if the UMC splits into multiple bodies, some of which do not include US Americans, what legal and ethical claims do non-Americans have on the common assets of the UMC? Regardless of where assets originally came from, are current United Methodists from outside the US entitled to some financial support if they decide to seek autonomy?

Certainly, US Americans have paid in the overwhelming majority to the apportionment system and given the most in additional gifts to the boards and agencies. Thus, most of the assets being divided were originally American assets. Yet, the trust clause does not say that the assets of the UMC are held in trust for its American members. It says that they are held in trust for the denomination as a whole, which also includes non-Americans, who are equal members of the denomination.

The Liberian Annual Conference’s legislation clearly indicates that United Methodists outside the US are entitled to some share of the denomination’s resources if there is a split. It calls for the $120 million in unrestricted general church assets (from agencies and apportionment funds) to be split evenly among the jurisdictions and central conferences. Each of these regional entities would receive about $10 million under this proposal.

Under the WCA asset division plan, the only assets that central conferences are eligible to receive if they become autonomous and unconnected to the American church are those assets associated with Africa University. Otherwise, any central conferences becoming autonomous would receive no general church assets. Yet, if the central conferences remain connected to a US successor denomination, they make a significant impact on how much assets that successor denomination receives – as much as $150 million.

Under this plan, while United Methodists in the central conferences are largely shut out of receiving assets themselves, they are very powerful players in the contest for assets among US Americans. Certainly, being such a valuable prize would give United Methodists in the central conferences some leverage in negotiating a shared future with a branch of American Methodism. Yet this arrangement could be seen as treating them as second-class members of the denomination. They are valuable, but they cannot receive that value directly themselves by becoming autonomous, and if they remain tied to the US, their value will be realized by the US-based structures of whatever denomination they stay with.

These three questions – Who negotiates the division of assets? What constitutes a fair share? And what claim do the central conferences have on general church assets? – are all tricky questions without clear answers. Where one comes down on these three questions depends on personal judgment as well as personal interest.

This does not mean that, should there be a denominational split, United Methodists should not try to figure out how to divide denominational assets. It does mean that General Conference delegates and others should not be blasé about the difficulties involved in negotiating a plan to do so.

Recommended Viewing: The Central Conferences at the Pre-General Conference Briefing

Resource UMC has posted videos and PowerPoint slides from the presentations made at the Pre-General Conference Briefing held in Nashville on Jan. 23-24. Among the presentations are several that will be of particular interest to the readers of this blog.

A panel on "Central Conference Perspectives," including presentations by Rev. Ole Birch of Denmark, Rev. Igmedio Domingo of the Philippines, and Rev. Betty Kazadi Musau of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. UM & Global has published a transcript of Rev. Domingo's remarks. PowerPoint slides from Rev. Domingo's presentation and from Rev. Birch's presentation are also available. Both Rev. Domingo and Rev. Kazadi Musau are signers of the Christmas Covenant, and thus this presentation gives important background into what is another significant structural plan presented to General Conference.

The panel on "Young Panel's Voice in the Church" also included two speakers from the Central Conferences: Jani Djamba of Germany and Venus Mae Gatdula of the Philippines. This panel, which focuses on the proposed restructuring of the Division of Young People's Ministries and the role of young people in the church, is another opportunity for American United Methodists to listen to the voices of United Methodists from the Central Conference before General Conference.

While presented by US representatives, portions of the panel on "Our Global Connection" are highly relevant, too. George Howard's presentation (beginning at 11:00) describes the work of the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters and the role of bishops in Africa. Bishop Palmer (beginning at 14:00) describes the comprehensive plan for adding bishops to Africa. Bishop Palmer's slides are also available. Dee Stickley-Miner I(beginning at 20:45) describes work on the General Book of Discipline.

Finally,  Rev. Dr. Kyle Tau discusses the ecclesiology statement "Sent in Love" in his presentation, starting at 1:30. His presentation will be of interest to those following UM & Global's series assessing "Sent in Love."

Igmedio Domingo: Philippine Central Conference Perspective on the Future of The United Methodist Church

Today’s post is by Rev. Igmedio Domingo, District Superintendent of the Southwest Metro Manila District in the Manila Episcopal Area and a signer of the Christmas Covenant. The post contains remarks made by Rev. Domingo at the Pre-General Conference Briefing. They are republished here with his permission.

I am honored and privileged to represent the Philippines Central Conference in this post. We seek to assert our rights within our Connection, and our desire to be included as an equal part of the global United Methodist Church - not just seen and treated as a subordinate member of our faith community.

OUR VISION FOR THE UMC IN PHILIPPINES
Our vision AS A CHURCH in the Philippines is strongly founded and deeply anchored in the visionary prayer of Jesus “THAT THEY MAY BE ALL ONE” (John 17). We are one in mission, ministries, and service to all people, especially the marginalized and excluded, who are in need of God’s compassionate love.  Our vision of “unity in mission” is grounded in our unique Filipino cultural and political context wherein we continue to struggle against colonial influences. It is in our work to share the gospel of love that binds us. Our polity needs to reflect this vision.

We envision a Philippines Central Conference where human dignity, human rights, and the integrity of all people are upheld. We envision a United Methodist Church that respects and honors all, regardless of their race and ethnicity, political views, class, location, age, gender and gender identity, and sexual orientation. I believe that being Wesleyan means that we extend grace and love to all. We need to work for a church that promotes the highest standard of equality, justice, and fairness. There is too much arrogance, division, violence, and hate in our society and unfortunately, even in our church. Our division has brought so much agony, frustration, and pain in the body of Christ. Thus, our witness and mission to make disciples of Jesus for the transformation of the world have suffered.

WE ARE ONE IN OUR STRUGGLE FOR UNITY
Extrajudicial killings, the murder of innocent lives, political and economic oppression, and even the murder of church people fighting for justice are the historical elements that continue to inspire us in the Philippines to raise our voices in this season before General Conference, that WE ARE STRONGLY UNITED, WE ARE DEEPLY ENGAGED IN MISSION and STRONGLY COMMITTED IN SERVICE.

As a central conference, we have a distinct missional context. We have a diverse culture with many languages. We minister in a country of 1,641 islands. We have three episcopal areas: Baguio (Ilocano region), Manila (Tagalog region), and Davao (Visayan region). We have differences in culture, location, language, and theological leanings, but we are united in being United Methodists. Our voice as a central conference has to be heard and our context understood and respected. Central conference perspectives should not be an afterthought. In fact, we should be an equal partner at the table envisioning the future of the church, and not just an audience whose perspectives are being asked after others have made plans and decisions that affect our mission work. This demands equity and respect.

Whatever happens after GC2020, I can assure you that the Philippines Central Conference will remain part of The United Methodist Church.

OUR JOINT POSITION AS A PHILIPPINE CENTRAL CONFERENCE
As a central conference of United Methodists in the Philippines, we are intensely opposed to any move that dissolves the United Methodist Church. We value the witness of the early church as shown in the book of Acts of the Apostles, wherein division and schism were avoided and unity in mission was their highest aspiration.

The PHILIPPINE CENTRAL CONFERENCE College of Bishops passed a UNITY STATEMENT dated last August 31, 2019. This statement strongly embraced Unity in Mission and also promotes our desired structural legacy that we can be proud of, namely:

1.    Locality or contextuality: that is why we have local churches, annual conferences and central conferences; being responsive to our missional context is obligatory.

2.    Connectionality in relationships; that is why there is a General Conference and a Council of Bishops; having a global identity and organic structure are necessary.

3.    Globality in inclusiveness; that is why the UMC reaches out in mutual relations with all governments and civil communities that promote Christian values and principles. Wesley said: “The world is my parish.”

It is clear to us in the Philippine Central Conference that a church empowered by God’s dynamic spirit and biblical wisdom requires that these structural legacies be maintained and promoted in any restructuring of the UMC. These principles are all opposed to the move to dissolve or splinter the UMC.

To support effective mission work across the connection, our Philippines Central Conference College of Bishops has recommended the following, and I quote:

1.    “The UMC is to be restructured into regional conferences, within which will remain central and jurisdictional conferences, annual conferences and local churches.

2.    “The UMC will remain as one global church in which regional, annual and local conferences are organic parts; but have the authority to decide their witness, mission and ministry, thus, preserving locality and connectionality.

3.    “The Council of Bishops shall be retained as both the living organic symbol of the globality of the UMC; and the mechanism for general and local oversight over all the UMC.

“These elements for restructuring the UMC will both preserve the organic integrity and identity of the UMC and make it free and responsive to the new world that is aborning.”

Parallel to this Resolution, the Rev. Jonathan Ulanday, a GC delegate from the Davao area, submitted a Petition dated September 18, 2019, entitled “Oppose Dissolution and Preserve the Unity of The United Methodist Church”. We believe keeping the UMC united against dissolution and schism is affirmed by the Preamble and Articles 4, 5, and 6 of The UMC Constitution.

This petition highlights the following principles that promote the unity and inclusiveness of the church described in the Preamble and Articles 4, 5, and 6 of The UMC Constitution:

1.    “Any form of structure and relationship that defines and treats one part of the church as a mere extension of another is colonial in nature and unjust.

2.    “Contextualization is a missional, structural, and connectional endeavor that is an expression of our historical unity and core heritage, church order, and discipline.

3.    “The diversity of our ministry and cultural contexts is real, but unity rooted in fulfilling the mission of the church can be maintained by identifying such differences and allowing for contextual authority to be exercised equitably by both central and jurisdictional conferences, or any regional structure formed by General Conference.”

This petition asks General Conference to:
1.    “Suspend all actions furthering any dissolution, disaffiliation, and separation plans in favor of preserving the unity of the church in compliance with our Constitution and the biblically founded values of unity, inclusiveness, and redemptive grace and mission in our Preamble, also the wisdom and practice of contextual central conference authority (Par. 31.5, Par. 31.6, and Par. 543).

2.    “Authorize the Connectional Table and the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters to jointly study and submit a report with proposals to the next General Conference session that preserves and strengthens the unity of the church in mission through a restructured polity that affirms and values broad contextual ministry policies and practices, including parity in contextual authority among existing central and jurisdictional conferences and/or any future regional bodies established by General Conference.”

THE CHRISTMAS COVENANT
As I close let me share a bit about the Christmas Covenant. Together with Rev. Dr. Betty Kazadi here and other central conference GC delegates and alternate delegates, I am a signatory to the Christmas Covenant. The Christmas Covenant is a vision coming from our central conferences that is guided by this frame, and I quote:

“As United Methodists from central conferences, we envision a Church that connects globally, engages in mission together, respects contextual ministry settings, celebrates the diversity of God’s creation in its many beautiful expressions, and values mutually empowering relationships in order to strengthen our core mission of evangelism, discipleship, and social witness for the transformation of the world. This is our covenant.”

The Christmas Covenant legislation will focus on establishing a regional conference structure for the future United Methodist Church. This legislation has been sent by the Philippines Annual Conference – Cavite to the General Conference. Possibly, it will be the only restructure proposal from central conferences. We are claiming our place at the table.

CONCLUSION
As we draw closer to General Conference this May, may we be one in prayer and strongly sustain our position to stand for UNITY IN MISSION, EVEN IF IT IS A RISK-TAKING MOVE. In any event, the Philippines Central Conference will seek to sustain ourselves and be part of The United Methodist Church.

"The Christmas Covenant and the Protocol complement each other"

The most significant piece of news in the UMC this week is undoubtedly the actions of the Philippines Annual Conference - Cavite, although many may have missed the significance. The PAC Cavite, meeting this week from the 12th through the 14th, passed two pieces of legislation on to the General Conference: the Protocol of Reconciliation & Grace Through Separation and the Christmas Covenant legislation. UMNS has this report about the conference's actions.

It is significant not only that PAC Cavite was the first annual conference to send the Protocol to General Conference, but that it sent the Protocol and the Christmas Covenant legislation together. The legislation for the Protocol has been critiqued in US social media for failing to include provisions for regionalization or the repeal of the Traditionalist Plan. That legislation focuses solely on the process of creating new denominations out of the UMC and asset division among them.

While the text for the Christmas Covenant legislation has not yet been released, the principles of the Christmas Covenant are clear, based on the Covenant document itself and comments made in a UMNS story about the document's release. That legislation is likely to include provisions for regionalization of the church in a way that will allow each region to make whatever adaptations necessary for the missional realities of that region, including those related to the qualifications for ordination and the services offered to all members of congregations.

Thus, the Christmas Covenant supplies the mechanisms for regionalization and adaptation of UMC policies by the US that the Protocol legislation is missing. As Bishop Rudy Juan said to UMNS, "I believe that the Christmas Covenant and the Protocol complement each other, and I am glad that both are endorsed by PAC Cavite."

But PAC Cavite has done something further by linking the Christmas Covenant and the Protocol. The Christmas Covenant includes a strong call for unity and an emphasis on the mission of the church. Thus, by linking the Christmas Covenant to the Protocol, the PAC Cavite has offered a way for those in the central conferences to vote for the Protocol while affirming the unity of the church. The Protocol alone might feel like voting for separation within the church, which the central conferences are opposed to. But voting for the Christmas Covenant with the Protocol is a way to affirm as much unity as possible in the church's present situation, while also taking actions to get the church out of some of the more intractable conflicts in which it finds itself.

For these reasons, along with the basic reason that the voices of United Methodists in the central conferences deserve to be heard, when the Christmas Covenant legislation is publicly released (probably in the near future), it deserves to be regarded as a serious and significant plan for the future of the UMC, on par with any other major plan.

A System for Preserving the UMC Connection in Germany

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

A System for Preserving the Connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full report (in German) is available here.

Recommended Reading: Central Conference United Methodists on GC2020

Two initiatives by United Methodists in the central conferences to influence the proceedings of General Conference 2020 have recently been announced.

First, two presentations by Rev. Lloyd T. Nyarota on behalf of a new lobbying group, the Forum of Concerned Central Conferences United Methodists, were recently published on United Methodist Insight. This group includes an unnamed list of United Methodists from central conferences across Africa, in the Philippines, and in northern Europe. About half of the members live abroad, either in the United States or Canada. The group has been formed to advocate in advance of General Conference 2020.

The two presentations - one to the central conference bishops and one in the Philippines - lay out the group's basic premises: the proposals heading to GC2020 were written without substantial central conference input; it is time for United Methodists in the central conferences to lead; United Methodists in the central conferences want unity; and the Philippines Plan is the best way to achieve that desired unity.

Two observations are worth making about these presentations: 1. In much of what they are saying, this group is intentionally echoing and affirming the statements by the African and Filipino bishops; thus, these ideas have some currency beyond just this group. 2. Their support of the Philippines plan indicates that while US United Methodists have mainly been focused on the four US-drafted plans, the Philippines plan deserves to be considered as a fifth option, as there are people advocating for it. Indeed, as this blog has previously argued, Filipinos may play a unique role in resolving the current conflict in the church, making their plan and their concerns around unity worthy of study.

Second, a group of leaders from the central conferences has released a "Christmas Covenant" calling for continued unity in the denomination. (See also the associated UMNS story.) The covenant draws on theological principles of all as children of God, ubuntu, and bayanihan. That two of these three principles are drawn from cultures outside of the US is itself significant. Using these principles, the covenant opposed the separation of the church and division of its assets; supports the formation of a US regional conference; and supports legislative equality across regions of the church. Thus, the main goal of the Covenant - continued unity with greater regional autonomy - is similar to the goals laid out in Rev. Nyarota's presentations.

The signers of the Christmas Covenant include General Conference delegates and reserve delegates, district superintendents, seminary leaders, and other leaders from across the central conferences. While the signers of the Christmas Covenant include more people than those mentioned by Rev. Nyarota in his presentation, it is the same group behind both, according to Rev. Hilde Marie Movafagh, a group member and Covenant signer.

General Conference 2019 changed how many think about the church and motivated many to be more proactive in shaping the future of the denomination. US United Methodists would do well to recognize that United Methodists from the central conferences are among those so motivated.

Correction: An earlier version of this article indicated that the Forum of Concerned Central Conferences United Methodists was an overlapping but separate group from the signers of the Christmas Covenant. Thanks to Rev. Hilde Marie Movafagh for setting the record straight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With, Not About, the Central 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.

During General Conference 2019 and since then, queer United Methodists and their allies have had an important slogan: "with, not about."

This slogan indicates that The United Methodist Church should not talk about LGBTQ+ persons in a way that does not include them in the conversation. Instead, the church should talk with them when discerning matters related to their lives so that their perspectives and insights can inform the whole body's decision-making. This commentary by Jorge Lockward gives a good introduction into the problems that arise when the church talks about without talking with.

A quick review of mission history also shows many of the problems of talking about, not with. Missionaries who sought to impose their cultural understandings upon potential converts without seeking to understand the world and the gospel through the eyes of others often did much harm and were much less effective in sharing God's good news. Those missionaries who were most successful and most beloved by the people among whom they ministered were those who were willing to talk with, not about, native peoples and to learn from and be transformed by them.

Thus, this principle of "with, not about" follows important missional insights from the last century. I have written elsewhere about how mission is a conversation about God's good news, where those conversations take place in the context of relationships across boundaries. Conversation is never one-sided. A conversation about the good news that God has for LGBTQ+ persons is a conversation that must involve them and be informed by their understandings of what is good and how God brings about newness in the world.

Conversation does not presume that one side's pre-existing views will predominate. It is instead a space for each side to learn from and be informed by the other. Ideally, this process of mutual learning will allow God to create something new through that interaction reveals God's goodness in a way that goes beyond the ways that any one party understood at the beginning. But that transformation cannot happen if not all parties feel like they have been heard in the conversation.

Thus, the principle of "with, not about" is a good one and should be affirmed in its usage for the LGBTQ+ community. Yet it should also be extended beyond its present usage.
If it is important to include LGBTQ+ persons as marginalized people in conversations that directly impact their lives and their place in the church, then when we are having conversations that directly impact the lives and place in the church of other marginalized groups, we must have those conversations with and not just about those groups.

In particular, in discerning the future of The United Methodist Church, we must have conversations with, not about, persons in the central conferences.

The possibility of breaking apart the UMC is an issue that directly impacts the lives and the place in the church of members in the central conferences, whose views and voices have traditionally been marginalized in the church. US United Methodists must talk with, not about, those in the central conferences regarding what our relationships will look like in the future, how we can be the church together, and what God is saying to us as a group at this moment.

Note here that I am advocating that we talk about the nature of the relationships we have. I am not saying that pre-existing central conference views on sexuality should predominate. Sexuality is one issue that US United Methodists need to hear more from central conference sisters and brothers, in part so that our understanding of their concerns and perspectives can go beyond stereotypes and charicatures, but it is a part and not the whole of the conversation we need to have.

The real conversation we need to have together is what our mutual relationships will and should look like in the future. There have been several plans that have already come out proposing one way or another of splitting The United Methodist Church. From what I can tell, all of these plans have been drafted by US Americans with the impacts on US Americans as their main concern. To my knowledge, none of the plans thus far have been significantly informed by talking with United Methodists in the central conferences. The plans address the status of those in the central conferences, but in a way that is much more about than with.

This is not an acceptable way to try to discern the future of United Methodism for several reasons. First, it violates the ethical and missional principles set forth in the slogan of "with, not about." Second, from a practical perspective it is likely to fail. Central conference delegates are not likely to vote for any plan that they do not think takes them or their interests into consideration, and no plan is likely to pass without significant central conference support.

The principles of "with, not about" the central conferences is why I'm eagerly waiting to see what comes out of the group led by Bishop Yambasu. That seems to me to be one of the few conversations about the future of the church right now that is following the principle of "with, not about" the central conferences.

Yet whatever form it takes, for United Methodists to figure out a future, even a future of division into multiple bodies, it is crucial that those conversations happen with, not about, all those impacted by such significant decisions - LGBTQ+ persons and those in the central conferences both.

Recommended Viewing: The US & the Central Conferences at the UM Scholars Conference

While much of the Post-Way-Forward Gathering of UM Scholars focused on the US context, a few presentations looked at the relationship between the US and the Central Conferences.

Darryl W. Stephens presented on "United Methodism at the End of White Christian America." In his piece, he argued that the current conflicts in the UMC have their roots in a world in which white Christians were a dominant cultural force in America, and Americans were the dominant force in the UMC. Yet, white Christianity no longer holds the same dominant place in this country, and the UMC as a denomination has become increasingly less American and more international in its membership. Stephens closes by arguing that "General Conference must address the primary, urgent, pervasive, and political nature of the global challenges in the UMC."

Anne Burkholder's presentation on fine-grained attention to vote counts, however, indicates just how difficult building coalitions for change in the UMC is. She notes how the conversation is at very different places in different countries. Burkholder explains how, despite a centrist-progressive wave at GC2020 delegate elections in the US, US delegates along cannot push forward changes on their own. Yet, as Burkholder notes, it matters what the question is when it comes to anticipating central conference responses. Among the potential questions Burkholder examines is the proposal to create a separate US structure/region/central conference.

Taken together, Stephens' and Burkholders' presentations highlight the important of Americans having conversations "with not about" central conferences regarding the future of the church, a theme I will expand upon in a subsequent post.

Europeans Give More to Central Conferences Than the WCA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Money and the Future of Global United Methodism

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

Having laid forth in my last post some (possibly) better estimates by region of the level of internal giving and the amount of US support allows for some more specific comparison of funding received by central conferences from the US vs. funding central conferences are able to generate on their own.

This comparison then gives a sense of the magnitude of possible decreases in funding that central conferences could face and the scale of the decisions that they would have to make in the face of funding cuts from the US. I will here examine two scenarios: What would happen if all US subsidies were to stop through complete separation from the current denominational system, and what would happen if US subsidies were to decline by a third within the present system?

Western Europe
In Western Europe, a complete separation would certainly be felt. It would represent a loss of several million dollars in funding. That is perhaps 20% of the amount the region is able to generate internally for connectional ministries.

Such a reduction would lead to noticeable cutbacks and would force indigenous leaders to choose which programs to continue. Nevertheless, it would not devastate ministry, nor would it prohibit the region from continuing any form of ministry, and travel expenses would be an easy cut if separated from the denominational system. A 1/3 reduction within the present system would have smaller effects, though travel expenses would need to be preserved.

The Philippines
Subsidies within the Philippines are perhaps three or four times the internal connectional giving capacity, which would lead to significant effects if completely ended. Certainly, health, education, disaster response, service, and other ministries supported by US dollars would be affected, and some ministry programs would end. Filipino bishops might also have to take a pay cut.

Yet the Philippines has several educational and health institutions that already operate extensive fee-for-service programs and thus would be able to continue, even without outside support. These ministries would not end, even without US support, though they might face challenges in launching new programs or upgrading facilities and equipment.

Because of these fee-for-service programs and internal giving capacity, a 1/3 reduction within the current system would result in substantial cutbacks and some lower-priority programs being closed, but it would allow for high-priority work to continue.

Africa
The subsidies Africa receives are perhaps 8 times as much as their internal capacity for connectional giving, though out of all the regions, I am least certain what Africa’s internal capacity actually is. Thus, complete separation would be devastating and would effectively end or impact many forms of ministry beyond local churches. Bishops would need to survive on substantially reduced salaries, though given the high level of episcopal salaries relative to average salaries in their countries, there is room to cut.

Most evangelism in Africa happens through indigenous resources, except for Global Ministries support of mission initiatives in some newly-entered countries Thus, church growth and evangelism, at least within countries of existing United Methodist presence, would like be little affected by the end of outside support, except perhaps in the mission initiatives. Moreover, Africans have shown a capacity for charitable giving by local congregations, especially for ad-hoc needs and programs with low capital and administrative costs. These forms of ministry would likely continue, even with the end of outside support.

African schools and hospitals do generate some money through fees for service, but it is not clear if all of them could survive on these alone. Quite likely, a complete cessation in US support would end large-scale health and service ministries in Africa, especially those that rely upon substantial capital in the form of buildings and equipment. Colleges and universities with popular secular programs tend to be money-makers for the church (in Africa and elsewhere) and could continue. Primary and secondary schools are much less lucrative and therefore more likely to be impacted.

A 1/3 reduction in support would also significantly impact these large, institutional ministries and significantly reduce the number and/or scope of them. Many such ministries could probably continue under such a scenario, though to do so, African United Methodists would likely turn to more government support (at the expense of some United Methodist control) and fee-for-service arrangements.

Eastern Europe
For Eastern Europe, the amount of subsidies is perhaps 10 times as much as their internal capacity for connectional giving. Even more so than Africa, complete separation would be catastrophic and would effectively end most forms of ministry beyond local churches. Churches in Eastern Europe would even be challenged to continue to support bishops and district superintendents without outside help.

A 1/3 reduction within the current system would mostly affect educational, service, justice, and evangelism ministries. Indigenous leaders would need to choose among these competing priorities, with some types of ministry being halved (or worse) to preserve others.

Conclusion
Since health ministries directly save lives and poverty-reduction, sustainable development, and educational ministries have an indirect but significant effect on the length and quality of life, decisions about the future of US support for central conference ministries are ethical decisions. They directly impact the lives of tens of thousands of people throughout the world.

The decisions that US United Methodists, from traditionalist to centrist to progressive, will make about the funding arrangements they establish with the central conferences in whatever the next iteration of Methodism is will thus have real consequences, and dramatic cuts will cost lives among the poorest and most marginalized globally.

Of course, there are also strategic and ethical questions about continuing to foster a system of dependency rather than empowerment. Yet a unilateral and sudden end to US subsidies of the central conferences is not the appropriate way to end dependency.

Admittedly, in any scenario for the future of United Methodism, the amount of money from the US for connectional ministries will be less than it is now. Some reduction in US subsidies for ministry in the central conferences will be an economic necessity, given membership trends in the US.

Nevertheless, having created the current system of dependency, US United Methodists have a moral obligation to fellow United Methodists in the central conference to work with them to decide together how to plan for a sustainable economic future for those ministries most important to people in the central conferences. To do anything less would be for US United Methodists to show disregard for the lives and the humanity of those who are different from them.

Central Conference Finances, Take Two

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

Over the past several weeks, I have published a series of posts about finances in the global United Methodist Church, including central conference church giving, US support for central conference ministries, central conference bishops’ salaries, and African clergy salaries. Having worked through that variety of material, I’ve gained new insight relative to some of the earlier posts in the series. This post will contain some additional reflections on how much money the central conferences collect and how that compares to the amount of US financial support for central conference ministry. A subsequent update post will re-examine what would likely be cut if US support declined or ended.

How Much Money Do Central Conferences Collect?
In trying to get some hard data for African pastoral salaries, I did a quick calculation. I took the amount of money I estimated that central conferences might collect based on total membership, average annual income for that country, and the assumption that 1% of that income might go to churches and 70% of what is given to churches might go to pastoral salaries, then divided it by the number of pastors to get an estimate of clergy salaries.

When that calculation is run for the United States, it produces a number in the range of what an average clergy salary might be. But the model breaks down significantly outside the United States.

In most places in Europe, it gives a number that is about a third the average annual income for that country. In the Philippines, it gives a number that is half the average annual income. While pastors are not paid terribly well, it is unlikely that European and Filipino pastors earn so little. What is instead likely is that both European and United Methodists give more than 1% of their income to the church, perhaps 3-5% in Europe and 2-3% in the Philippines.

In Africa, on the other hand, the calculation fails for the opposite reason – in most countries, it gives a number much larger than what a pastor’s salary might actually be. While there may be some errors in the data for number of clergy in an individual country, the overall trend suggests that in most African countries, United Methodists give much less than 1% of the average annual income for their country. As Robert Harmon has pointed out in a comment on a previous post, average income figures for many African countries can be skewed by urban high earners, whereas many, especially in rural areas, do not participate significantly in the cash economy, instead exchanging goods and services in kind. Those who have no cash can give no cash to the church.

While much uncertainty remains, what these numbers allow us to do is revise estimates for how much central conferences might collect in local church donations. Revising in a way that would produce more accurate estimates of pastoral salaries suggests that the Philippines might collect $25 million at the local church level, Europe as much as $180 million at the local church level, and Africa as little as $11 million.

Altogether, that still adds up to more than $200 million, meaning the total estimate for connectional giving from the central conferences is still in the neighborhood of $20 million (based on an estimate of 10% of total giving going for connectional ministries), as I suggested earlier. Yet it dramatically shifts where than $20 million is coming from – much less from Africa, much more from Europe, and somewhat more from the Philippines.

How Much Are Central Conference Ministries Subsidized by the US?
In an earlier post, I suggested that US United Methodists subsidize ministries in the central conferences to the extent of about $100 million per year - $40 through apportionments and general agencies, and $60 through direct partnerships with annual conference and local congregations. Having gotten a better sense of what giving patterns in the central conferences look like, is it possible to get a better sense of what US support looks like?

First, it’s worth noting that in terms of subsidies, one can talk about four different areas with different economic realities: Western Europe (the Germany Central Conference, parts of the Southern and Central Europe Central Conference, and most of the Nordic and Baltic Episcopal Area), Eastern Europe (parts of the Southern and Central Europe Central Conference, the Eurasia Episcopal Area, and the Baltic part of the Nordic and Baltic Episcopal Area), the Philippines, and Africa. Each area receives some subsidies, but of varying types and extents.

Western Europe receives subsidies in meetings expenses. It also receives missionaries from Global Ministries, and the benefit of some other general agency programs that serve the whole church, though it’s hard to say exactly how much. Western Europe does not receive much direct programmatic funding from the general church and is instead a source of programmatic funding for partners in Africa through various European United Methodist agencies. Western Europe pays above its assigned apportionments to cover the cost of its episcopal leadership, but it may not pay for the entire amount of its episcopal travel. Altogether, Western Europe probably receives $2-5 million from the global church and pays about $300,000 in apportionments.

Eastern Europe (because of membership numbers and economic realities) pays less in episcopal support than Western Europe, and it is more likely to receive programmatic support for things like poverty relief, evangelism, education, and sustainable development. Eastern Europe might receive as much as $12 million from the global church, while paying a few tens of thousands in apportionments.

The Philippines also receives subsidies for travel and episcopal expenses. They receive some agency money and direct giving, though based on the number of Advance specials in the Philippines relative to elsewhere, perhaps not as much as one might think. It is possible that the Philippines actually receives less in subsidies than Eastern Europe, perhaps in the neighborhood of $9 million, while paying $40-50,000 in apportionments.

Africa receives significant subsidies for all forms of ministry – travel, episcopal expenses, and programmatic ministries. Perhaps three quarters of all subsidies sent from the US to the global church go to Africa, which also receives support from European United Methodists not included in my calculations. All told, the amount of support might be somewhere around $75 million, compared to around $200,000 in apportionments paid.

Hence, all areas of the central conferences receive subsidies from US United Methodists, even relatively well-off Western Europeans. But the extent of subsidies and the ratios between subsidies on the one hand and apportionments or internal giving on the other vary significantly among the regions.

Bishops' Salaries and African UMC Economics

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 indicated in a previous post, one way in which United Methodists in the United States subsidize the ministry of United Methodists in the central conferences is through the Episcopal Fund, one of the seven general church apportionment funds.

Episcopal areas in the central conferences do contribute to the Episcopal Fund (central conference apportionments make up 2.81% of the Episcopal Fund), but the amount they receive from that fund exceeds what they put in, thus generating a subsidy.

GCFA has reported that the cost for a central conference bishop on average is $930,000 for the current quadrennium, or about $232,500 per year. This total for episcopal expenses includes salary, housing allowance, office allowance, and travel.

In 2018, the UMC spent $1,016,903 in Africa, $234,670 in the Philippines, and approximately $373,832 in Europe on episcopal salaries. Subtracting salary from the total expense leaves about $150,000 per bishop for benefits, housing, office, and travel expenses. Benefits might account for $30,000 (40% of average salary). Presumably less than $20,000 (the American limit) is for housing. No more than $10,000 is for office expenses. That leaves up to $100,000 per year in travel expenses per central conference bishop. While this may seem high, note the large expenses in flying bishops from remote locations in the central conferences to the Unites States for frequent meetings.

Taken all together, the UMC as a whole is spending about $4,650,000 per year on central conference bishops. By contrast, all central conferences together gave $621,241 in 2018 to the episcopal fund. Thus, central conferences received about 7 ½ times what they spend on episcopal compensation.

Even more important is the disparity between episcopal compensation and the average income of people in many of the central conference countries. In the United States, a bishop’s salary is 2.7 times the average income for a resident of the US. In Germany, it’s only 1.7 times as large, and in Russia, it’s only 2.3 times. But in the Philippines, a bishop’s salary is 9.4 times the average income.

And in Africa, the gap is even larger. It’s 13.3 times as large as the average salary in Nigeria, 34 times in Zimbabwe, 55.9 times in Liberia, and a whopping 111.7 times in the DRC. And that’s not including benefits, housing and office payments, or travel expenses. All told, episcopal compensation in Africa is dozens if not hundreds of times what an average United Methodist might make in a year.

While I have great respect for the difficult and challenging work done by the central conference bishops and the deep faithfulness of the individuals in the role, there are some structural consequences of these US subsidies of central conference episcopal salaries that are vastly out of scale with average income in African countries. Again, these are structural consequences to a structural issue that has been around longer than any of the individuals currently serving as bishops. This is about the system we as global United Methodists have collectively built, not any of the individuals serving as bishops in that system.

Moreover, it’s important to point out the colonialist roots of this system, wherein bishops were initially US Americans, and it was seen as acceptable to pay them many times what those among whom they served earned. Upon the election of leaders from the central conferences as bishops, the reasonable argument was made that they deserved to be paid in line with their American predecessors, not at a fraction of that rate.

Be that as it may, this system has several consequences. First and foremost, it dramatically increases bishops’ roles as patrons, therefore increasing both bishops’ power and the demands placed on them. African bishops may receive a lot of money, but they don’t just keep all this money for themselves. In line with traditional leadership models, bishops function as patrons who distribute resources, including their own money, for the benefit of those they lead. African bishops being paid more also means that the United Methodists they serve expect more from them as patrons, since they are aware of the resources that bishops control, not just through approval and channeling of project funding, but from their own salaries.

However, because the funds that African bishops distribute through patronage come from outside the communities served, rather than being redistributed among those communities as in traditional times, this reduces the accountability of bishops. If bishops hold all of the financial cards in a relationship, there are fewer who can (or are willing to) afford (literally) to challenge the bishops.

This can make episcopal elections hotly contested, as they are not just for positions of spiritual leadership but for positions of significant economic influence that can be used in a manner seen fit by the office holder with little pushback from others. I am not saying that bishops use this situation for their own benefit; again, they are often called upon to use their own resources for the church. I am saying this situation gives bishops a tremendous amount of power, making election as a bishop a very valuable prize.

The value of the prize of being bishop and the extent of the power that bishops wield within the official system paradoxically also increases the incentive for those not elected as bishop to try to cultivate alternative, non-official sources of funding to develop their own power base, since there is little recourse to power left to them through official channels after losing an episcopal election.

It is thus significant, for instance, that the three Africans on the WCA council (Jerry Kulah, Kimba Evariste, and Forbes Matonga) all previously ran unsuccessfully for bishop. WCA funding, connections, and prestige are a way to challenge the authority of the bishops in ways that are not possible through the official channels of the church. Indeed, it is fair to say that the way the UMC has administratively and financially structured the office of bishop in Africa has produced a perverse incentive for other African leaders to affiliate with the WCA to try to build their own spheres of influence.

To the extent that African episcopal salaries are ethical or administrative problem in need of a solution, the solution is not as simple as just giving all African bishops a significant pay cut. There are real issues of procedural fairness to those serving as bishop that should make us reconsider such a drastic approach.

But the UMC could stand to reflect more on how it has structured financial relationships not only between the United States and the central conferences, but within the central conferences themselves, and the complicity of US United Methodists in those systems. And, as The United Methodist Church lurches towards whatever future awaits it, there is no time like the present to rethink how money shapes the denomination, the consequences of that shaping, and the alternative that may exist