News Roundup - June 1, 2023

Below is a run-down of significant (United) Methodist stories from the past month.

Council of Bishops Recommended 2026 General Conference: At their May meeting, the Council of Bishops recommended the UMC hold a five-day General Conference in 2026. That session would count as a regular General Conference and also be focused on making significant changes to the denomination: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/bishops-call-for-general-conference-in-2026.

Much Lower UMC Budget Proposed: GCFA and the Connectional Table agreed to send a much lower denominational budget proposal to General Conference: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/as-church-exits-rise-proposed-budget-drops.

United Methodist Africa Forum Organizes: The United Methodist Africa Forum held its first meeting in Johannesburg in April, where it organized itself, elected leaders, and adopted policy positions, including support for greater regionalization in the church: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/new-caucus-supports-african-bishops-regionalization.

Global Ministries and East Africa Episcopal Area Announce End to Embargo: Global Ministries and the East Africa Episcopal Area announced the end to a decade-long embargo of funds from Global Ministries to East Africa. The embargo arose out of disputes over audit issues, which have been resolved: https://umcmission.org/may-2023/joint-announcement-the-general-board-of-global-ministries-and-east-africa-episcopal-area-restore-relationship/.

UMC Council of Bishops Meets: The United Methodist Council of Bishops met for its first in-person meeting since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The council sought to set a forward-looking tone amid church conflict and disaffiliations: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/amid-rupture-bishops-called-to-renew-church.

Connectional Table Reconsiders Restructuring: The Connectional Table voted at an April 27^th meeting to reconsider an earlier proposal for restructuring itself and reducing the number of members of the body: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/leadership-body-reconsiders-restructuring-plan.

Global Ministries Africa Consultation Promotes Mission Partnership: Global Ministries’ African Mission Partners Consultation, held in April, brought together African UMC leaders and Global Ministries board members and staff to strengthen mission partnerships in Africa: https://umcmission.org/may-2023/consultation-charts-way-for-missional-church/ and https://umcmission.org/may-2023/partnership-in-mission-with-mutual-respect-and-accountability/.

BMCR Forges Connections with Africa: Black Methodists for Church Renewal, the Black caucus in the US UMC, worked to develop closer ties with Africa during its annual meeting, inviting Dr. Peter Mageto of Africa University to address the group: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/black-caucus-draws-closer-to-african-partners.

Irish Methodists and Polish United Methodists Continue Partnership: Polish United Methodist leaders visited Ireland to continue a partnership with the Methodist church there: https://irishmethodist.org/world-mission-news/visit-from-world-church-family.

North African United Methodists Affirm Connection: United Methodist pastors and a church leader from UMC congregations in Algeria and Tunisia met with UMC Bishops Patrick Streiff and Stefan Zürcher to reaffirm the role of those congregations in the future of the church: https://www.umc-cse.org/en/liste_552612-1028104/when-uncertainty-gives-way-to-new-courage-of-faith.html.

Korean-American UMCs Support Mongolia Amid Divisions: The Mongolia Mission held a recent summit for its Korean-American supporters. Despite the decision of some supporting churches to disaffiliate, the event stressed unity in mission: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/korean-churches-hope-to-continue-shared-mission-work-in-mongolia.

Czech United Methodists Vote to Become Autonomous: At the annual conference of the Czech UMC, participants voted to leave the denomination to become autonomous. They will follow the autonomy process laid out in the Book of Discipline, which requires General Conference approval: https://www.umc-cse.org/en/liste_552612-1030316/setting-the-course-in-czechia.html.

United Methodists Prepare for Changes to Migrant Ministries in the United States: After the end of the Title 42 migrant regulations, United Methodists involved in ministry with migrants have been preparing for possible increases or changes to the flow of migrants to the United States: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/amid-policy-changes-church-keeps-faith-with-migrants.

Chilean Methodists Support Migrants: With help from Connexio develop, the Swiss United Methodist development agency, Chilean Methodists have been working to support migrants to Chile: https://connexio.ch/index.php/2023/05/17/als-kirche-fuer-migrantinnen-da-srf-1-zeigt-reportage-aus-chile/.

Global Ministries Celebrates Historic Ministry of Asian and Pacific Islander Immigrants: In recognition of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, Global Ministries has been shared stories of Asian and Pacific Islander immigrants who have contributed to United Methodist mission: https://umcmission.org/asian-american-and-pacific-islander-contributions-within-methodist-mission/.

Philippines UMC Promotes Conversations about Religion, Race, Gender, and Ability: The National United Methodist Youth Fellowship in the Philippines, the Philippines Board of Women's Work, and the General Commission on Religion and Race are launching an initiative called #CloseTheGap to promote conversations about religion, race, gender, and (dis)ability: https://www.gcorr.org/news/closethegap-initiative-launches-in-the-philippines.

Yambasu Agricultural Initiative Reinvests in Second Season: The various projects across Africa associated with Global Ministries’ Yambasu Agricultural Initiative are planning to reinvest profits from their first growing season into a second season: https://umcmission.org/may-2023/reinvestment-in-yambasu-initiative-projects-leads-to-growth/.

UMC Ministers to the HIV-Positive in Congo: The United Methodist Church in the Kivu Annual Conference, with support from Global Ministries, is supporting women living with HIV/AIDS as part of the Maternal and Child Health Program: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/church-gives-hope-to-people-living-with-hiv-in-congo.

United Methodists in Zimbabwe Combat Drug Abuse: At UMC-run high schools in Zimbabwe, church and school leaders have worked together to discourage drug abuse by students: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/united-methodists-join-fight-against-drug-abuse.

East Congo UMC and UMCOR Respond to Flooding: The Disaster Management Office of the East Congo Episcopal Area and UMCOR have begun responding to significant flooding in South Kivu, which killed several people: https://umcmission.org/may-2023/united-methodists-killed-in-congo-flooding/.

UMNS Supports Press Freedom: In an editorial published on World Press Freedom Day, May 3, Tim Tanton, Director of United Methodist News, explained what press freedom means to the church and why the church should support it: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/why-church-should-care-about-press-freedom.

Bolivia and the Challenges of Church Financing

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 Swiss UMC published a profile of the recently-elected Methodist bishop of Bolivia. The Evangelical Methodist Church in Bolivia is an autonomous Methodist denomination with historic connections to The United Methodist Church and on-going partnerships with Swiss United Methodists through the Swiss mission and development agencies, Connexio hope and develop.

One thing in particular struck me about what Bishop Medardo Vedia Gutierrez said about his vision for the future of the church in Bolivia. He argued that the church needs to become less financially reliant on its school system to pay for the ministries of the church.

Some background is important here. Methodism in much of South America was heavily influenced by William Taylor, a Methodist world-traveling evangelist, missionary, and eventually bishop. Taylor recruited most of the missionary personnel that forwarded the development of Methodism in South America in the later nineteenth century.

Taylor was a strong proponent of self-supporting mission. That is, he wanted mission to be primarily funded by local sources, not by donations from the United States. In South America, the main source for local funds to support Taylor missions was operating schools. Taylor missionaries made running schools (especially English-language schools) a primary focus of their work.

When leadership of Methodism in South America passed from missionary to local hands, these schools continued and continued to be an important part of South American Methodism, both as a source of revenue and as a marker of identity.

Thus, Bolivian Methodism's reliance on income from its school system has deep historic roots.

There have been real advantages historically to this system of church financing. It has made churches, even those serving poorer groups, less financially dependent on the United States, which has meant more freedom to make decisions locally.

But every strategy has its limitations, and the pandemic exposed the limitations of this strategy for church financing. During the COVID shutdown, income for Methodist schools in Bolivia fell sharply, which means that money to support the church in Bolivia dried up as well. That put a pinch on both the schools and the church.

Hence, Bishop Gutierrez would like to cultivate more congregational giving and more members and congregations to give and thus reduce the church's financial dependency on the schools. The challenge with congregational giving, however, comes when congregational members themselves have limited financial resources to share with the church.

This example from Bolivia is a good reminder: there is no perfect model for financing the activities of the church. Churches have had varying means of paying for the work they do throughout the centuries, and each of these means have had advantages and disadvantages.

Perhaps the goal, though, is not to find the perfect model for church financing that can apply universally, but rather to do the work of discerning what model can best support the mission and ministry of the church in a particular context at a particular time.

Running schools has had real advantages for Methodism in Latin America, but COVID caused a shift in the context. That calls for a rethinking of financial models, as Bolivia is doing. May God bless Bishop Gutierrez and the Bolivian church as they seek to continue to be faithful and wise in shifting contexts.

Daniel Bruno: The Challenges for Methodism in Latin America in Times of Neoliberalism

Today's post is by Rev. Lic. Daniel A. Bruno. Rev. Bruno is a pastor of the Argentina Methodist Church and Professor of Church History. It originally appeared (in Spanish) on the website of the Evangelical Methodist Church of Argentina (IEMA) and appears here in translation with the author's permission.

The context
About fifty years ago, it was decided by the centers of world economic power that Latin America should not continue down the path of economic growth and development, of expanding the middle class and industrialization. It was necessary to implement a plan to redirect the wealth. Instead of benefiting the majority and achieving equitable development, the "think tanks" of the new economic model called neoliberalism began to outline plans so that this wealth would drain away and accumulate in a few hands. The first tests of this plan were through the coups d'état that added up in Latin America starting in 1971.

All these violent democratic interruptions had a single purpose: to implement economic models that would allow a redirection of resources and money from the majority to the Latin American elites and their international partners and to repress popular resistance. That model of coups d'état exhausted itself in the mid-1980s. They generated a lot of resistance and, in the long run, were rejected by the population.

The plan was adjusted and now the model is much more subtle.

Economic power acquired the principal mass media of the continent; great economic emporiums now model the subjectivity of the population; and in this way, coups d'état are no longer necessary to discipline the population by force of arms. Media manipulation of subjectivities achieves this effect without generating resistance.

In this way today, in all the countries of the continent, the real power, which goes beyond the shifting governments, is mechanized through three specialized spheres: the economic-financial power, the concentrated mass media, and the judicial powers. This three-pronged pincer is the one that for approximately twenty years has been executing synchronously on the continent a model of exclusion, poverty, deindustrialization, and accumulation of wealth in a few hands that increasingly deteriorates the quality of life of the population. Judicial powers, meanwhile, imprison opponents, and population is deceived by the media, generating false disputes and dividing the peoples to achieve their objectives.

This situation is increasingly cruel, neoliberalism or neocolonialism, is destroying the expectations of life, of the future, and of the development of millions of Latin Americans. And the possibilities of resistance are becoming ever more difficult to implement and more stigmatized by the media.

This oppression and manipulation of subjectivities operates on consciences, managing to dilute the capacity of resistance of the masses. This is one of the most dangerous facets of neoliberalism since it affects the self-awareness of human beings, deceives about their options, and permeates deeper into false beliefs, preventing the possibility of visualizing the real causes that cause their postponement.

A recurring phrase of the Argentine economist Bernardo Kliksberg helps us to understand the consequences of this model. He says: "Latin America is not the poorest continent, but it is the most inequitable." A continent rich in natural resources, it has almost forty percent of its population below the poverty line. How is it possible? This is the result of a model of accumulation for the elites and the active contributing role of the hegemonic media and the judiciary that favor this situation. Now, to this phrase by Kliksberg, we can add… but Latin America is the most Christian continent. How can we understand this?

And the church?
At this point we must recognize that religion has also been co-opted to join this model of new post-modern oppression. Certain evangelical groups have been the most receptive and functional. Due to Latin America’s Christian layers, neoliberalism needed Christian language and symbology to penetrate the population. Indeed, this neocolonial siren song has formatted the theological profile of various evangelical expressions. How? Perhaps one of the best-known examples is that of the prosperity gospel, a theological version of neoliberal capitalism, where the one who “invests” more with money, receives more blessings from “God.”

However, this theological neoliberal culture has managed to impact not only these extravagant phenomena, but also historical Protestant expressions with a wide presence of testimony on the continent.

Anti-ecumenism, for example, has penetrated Protestant traditions that until quite recently had a fruitful dialogue with other traditions. This attitude of reactionary withdrawal is explained by the penetration of conservative fundamentalist currents that have been eroding the more liberal and progressive positions of the historical churches. Already in 1973, the well-known Rockefeller report advised and suggested to the government of Richard Nixon that, in order to curb the most protesting and progressive expressions of the Latin American churches, both Catholic and Protestant, money and programs should be invested to foment the penetration of individualistic theologies, of personal salvation, with contempt for the historical-social views and that fed conservative positions. Undoubtedly, these programs have been successful and the result is in sight.

Today, the vast majority of the Protestant camp has been transformed into a conservative force both theologically and politically, offering its votes to right-wing parties and coalitions in exchange for perks and favors, also acting as a shock force against any attempt at progressive change in Latin American societies.

Methodism in Latin America is not exempt from these temptations
Methodism, as part of the Protestant field in Latin America, has been and is seduced by this model. There are currently many attempts by conservative sectors of North American Methodism to finance projects of this type. A great temptation for churches with meager budgets such as the Latin American Methodists! The imminent breakup of the United Methodist Church in the United States frees some economically powerful groups that seek to finance and co-opt Latin American Methodist churches, in order to turn them into conservative forces in their countries.

This would be a sad end to a Methodism that was at the forefront of the struggle for secular laws and individual liberties at the end of the 19th century; a pioneer in the ecumenical movement in the mid-20th century; creators, along with other denominations, of movements such as FALJE (Federación Argentina de Ligas Juveniles Evangélicas – Argentine Federation of Evangelical Youth), and its later version of ULAJE (Unión Latinoamericana de Juventudes Ecuménicas – Latin American Union of Ecumenical Youth), mobilizing Protestant youth to a deep commitment to unite the good news of the gospel with the historical demands of the Latin American peoples; participation in ISAL (Iglesia y Sociedad en América Latina – Church and Society in Latin America); the fight against dictatorships and the defense of human rights in the 70s, 80s; etc.

We trust that this will not be the case and that Methodism in Latin America will know how to preserve these values. We trust that we are not going to sell our birthright, that is, our fidelity to the gospel embodied in the history of our peoples, for a plate of lentils poisoned with coins from Caesar. For this, it is essential to revisit the origins of our movement with Latin American eyes. To look critically at the cultural clothing with which that tradition came to us in the 19th century, after passing through the religious-cultural atmosphere present in the United States.

We appreciate those missions that made our presence here possible, but today more than ever, it is necessary that the autonomies declared in the 1930s and 60s finish taking root to free the evangelical power of a movement that changed a nation and now, in our context, must change ours.

During August, the Evangelical Methodist Church Argentina through its Methodist Center of Wesleyan Studies is going deeper into these issues through a series of posts. For my part, I will point out briefly in a next post some aspects that deserve to be debated to glimpse a new horizon and a possible future for our Methodist churches.

Recomended Reading: Swiss United Methodist gender pay survey

As it is in the United States, the pay differential between women and men in ministry has been a concern in the Swiss United Methodist Church for some time. However, in Switzerland that concern within the church is backed up by secular law. The Swiss Parliament passed a law in 2020 requiring companies with 100 or more employees to survey records and establish that they were providing equal pay for equal work.

After an extensive data analysis process, the results came back that the Swiss UMC paid men and women nearly equal - 2.7% less for women than men, which is within standard statistical variance. The Swiss report did not examine whether women and men were equally likely to hold various types of work, just whether they were equally compensation when performing the same type of work.

The Swiss report stands in marked contrast to similar studies in the United States. A General Commission on the Status and Role of Women report found that, in 2020, US clergywomen earned "11% less in salary, 11% less housing allowance, and 9% less parsonage amount than clergymen." The COSROW report found discrepancies across years of service and categories of clergy service, with women earning less as elders and deacons, full and provisional members, and serving in the UMC or another denomination (though the gap was smaller for clergy serving in other denominations). The only category where women earned more was as student local pastors. The gender pay gap also exists across jurisdictions in the United States.

Recommended Reading: Wespath CEO's introductory blog

As of January 1st, Wespath, the retirement investments and benefits agency of The United Methodist Church, has a new General Secretary and CEO, Andy Hendren. Hendren replaces Barbara Boigegrain, who retired after 27 years as General Secretary. While Wespath often receives less attention than other boards and agencies, the amount of resources it holds makes it a significant means for United Methodists to carry out connectional ministry, and the transition from Boigegrain to Hendren is a major transition for this important institution. Therefore, Hendren's introductory blog post as CEO is well worth reading.

Hendren's blog post contains two piece of particular interest. First, he explains his philosophy of investing:

"I think of our sustainable investments approach as a 'yes and.' We focus always on our core fiduciary obligation to our participants and investors to maximize returns—seeking alpha, or excess returns compared to our performance benchmarks, wherever we can. And we seek to 'raise the beta'—a strategy to reduce the systemic risks of financial markets and improve market-wide returns—in hopes of lifting all boats in a way that reaps the additional returns needed to care for those we serve."

Within the investment-speak of "alpha" and "beta" in these sentences, Hendren indicates that he sees good investment returns for investors and a positive impact on the broader society not as competing goals but as compatible goals. Given that the relationship between these two goals has periodically been a debate within the UMC, this is a significant statement.

Second, Hendren connects that belief in the compatibility between what's right for investors and what's right for the broader society with John Wesley's teachings. He writes, "To me, our commitment to sustainable investment embodies John Wesley’s general rules: first to 'do no harm' and second to 'do good of every sort, and, as far as possible to all.' In this sense, I think of sustainable investing as our brand of stewardship evangelism."

While it's not necessary for the CEO of Wespath to be a theologian, it is a very positive sign to see the CEO being able to speak the language of the church and to make connections between the church's theological articulation of values and Wespath's investment philosophy.

The Financial Future of Connectional Ministry

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.

Last week, I described the evolution of the current centralized apportionment system that The United Methodist Church uses to fund its connectional ministries. The apportionment system replaced an earlier system of direct solicitation by individual boards and agencies. I also indicated that the apportionment system may not last forever, and that this past can help us think about the financial future of connectional ministry in the UMC.

While the apportionment system has not yet ended, apportionments clearly cannot and will not be the same sort of financial engine for denominational agencies as they have been in the past. The UMC has passed “peak apportionment,” the point at which increased per capita giving by United Methodists in the United States made up for a decreasing number of US members. An impending denominational split and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have made connectional giving trends worse, but the underlying financial dynamics towards lower apportionment giving exist independently of these two complicating factors.

Lower levels of apportionments can potentially have a lot of different impacts on the connectional ministries of the UMC. Back in 2019, I looked at the possible consequences for connectional institutions and ministry programs. There have indeed been steep cuts at many of the agencies in terms of personnel and programs since I wrote that piece. I also explored the possibilities of reconfiguring the apportionment system to create different options for the connectional ministries that congregations and annual conference support, using the metaphor of content bundling.

Yet regardless of what other strategies denominational agencies may or may not adopt to respond to lower apportionments, the agencies are moving towards greater soliciting of direct gifts from United Methodist individuals and congregations. Recent Giving Tuesday appeals in your United Methodist-related social media feeds are just the tip of that trend. If money will not continue to come from apportionments, at least in the same amounts, then the agencies will look elsewhere, and direct giving is one of the foremost places they are looking.

Viewed through the lens of the history recounted last week, this move towards denominational agencies soliciting greater direct giving is a move back towards an older, pre-apportionment system of giving, in which denominational agencies competed with one another to solicit direct gifts from individuals and congregations. Therefore, reflecting on that older, pre-apportionment system can help us think about what a move away from apportionments and towards direct giving might mean for the future of connectional ministries in the UMC.

In particular, as we go back towards a system of soliciting direct gifts, it is worth thinking about how that move will reshape relationships in the denomination: relationships among agencies, relationships between agencies and the denomination’s congregations and members, and relationships between agencies and conferences.

As I explained about the pre-apportionment system last week, financing connectional ministry through direct giving is a system that puts denominational agencies in financial competition with one another. Yet, there has been a significant move towards collaboration between the boards and agencies in the past two decades, and the desire for agency cooperation remains strong among denominational leaders.

How will a return to substantial direct giving as a funding source impact the more collaborative relationships that have been built up among agencies? How can the denomination foster relationships among the agencies that emphasize collaboration and do not become merely competitive? If finances will not be the lever to push agencies towards collaboration (and indeed will push in the other direction), what levers will push towards collaboration?

The leading group of critics of the pre-apportionment direct giving system was laity, especially businessmen whose money the various church agencies sought to obtain. Those laity found the appeals for money excessive and worried about the efficiency of connectional ministries. Perhaps by the 21st century United Methodists in the United States have become a bit more inured to a large number of charitable solicitations, but the desire for missional efficiency remains strong.

How does an increase in direct solicitation develop greater responsiveness by agencies to individual and congregational missional priorities without overwhelming United Methodist individuals and congregations with a dozen separate financial appeals? How can agencies present multiple requests for money while assuring potential donors that those moneys will be used efficiently and effectively?

Finally, there are the relationships between agencies and various levels of conferences. Annual conferences were much more important financial players in the pre-apportionment system. Are annual conferences prepared to again take a larger role as intermediaries between the agencies and congregations? What sorts of new tensions and conflicts would that introduce to annual conferences, which are already facing a number of tensions and conflicts?

The move to the apportionment system also gave General Conference much more control over what had previously been semi-autonomous agencies. This increased control assured United Methodists that organizations that used the United Methodist name would be accountable to the highest authority in The United Methodist Church. How can the General Conference continue to exert control over the agencies for the sake of coordination, accountability, and efficiency if it controls a smaller percentage of agency budgets?

I do not mean to depict a shift away from apportionments and towards direct giving as all bad. As indicated last week, there are problems with the apportionment system. There are also advantages to direct giving. It creates more engaged givers. On the other hand, there are advantages to apportionments, and there were disadvantages to the system of direct giving that preceded the apportionment system.

Rather than trying to make out one financial system as better or worse than the other, my intention is to point out that The United Methodist Church is in a time of transition in how it finances its connectional ministries. If we can be aware that we are in a time of transition and aware of what the challenges and advantages are in various systems, then perhaps we can be mindful and intentional in trying to best capitalize on the advantages and avoid the disadvantages of the systems we develop.

A Brief History of Apportionments

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.

When the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC) was officially adopted by General Conference in 1820, it received no funding from the denomination. Instead, the Missionary Society was supported through direct gifts from individuals and congregations. The Missionary Society was the second denomination-wide agency in American Methodism. The Book Concern (predecessor of today’s Publishing House), the one older agency, was funded entirely by sales of books, as it still is today. Indeed, at that time, there wasn’t any central process of collecting denomination-wide funds.

The apportionment system, which so dominates the current United Methodist Church, took a long time to develop, longer than most of the agencies it supports. Indeed, it did not solidify until 1924, over a hundred years later than the earliest agencies. And today, nearly another hundred years later, there is no guarantee that apportionments will endure indefinitely.

This post will briefly review the process of the development of apportionments, and a subsequent post will examine what lessons that history offers for the financial future of connectional ministries in the UMC.

While there is some variation across predecessor denominations to the UMC, in their early histories, denominational agencies such as the Missionary Society of the MEC functioned as voluntary associations that operated relatively independently from General Conferences, including in financial matters. In the MEC, it was not until 1872 that the General Conference sought to exert much direct control over boards and agencies, and that control was still not focused on finances.

Funding for denominational agencies was often coordinated by annual conferences, not General Conference. Annual conferences would designate specific months for collections for specific benevolent ministries of the church. This helped give some order for congregations and individuals as givers, though congregations and individuals still made the real financial decisions about connectional ministries.

Moreover, this system of monthly foci for giving did not prevent local church benevolent societies from constantly collecting money for their specified area of ministry, nor did it prevent special appeals for finances in local churches by visiting agency staff persons or missionaries.

The first iteration of apportionments was as a system of fundraising goals set by individual agencies in the latter decades of the 19th century. Early apportionments were merely a request by an agency that each congregation raise a certain amount for the work of that agency. They were not approved by conferences and did not carry the weight of denominational polity behind them.

Absent central coordination, financial competition among boards and agencies increased throughout the late 19th and early 20th century as Methodists continued to create new agencies, each of which would solicit direct contributions from Methodist individuals and congregations. Despite whatever pressures towards collaboration in ministry there might have been, financial concerns fostered a lot of intra-Methodist competition. Ministers and especially laity became increasingly exasperated by the slew of fundraising appeals they were bombarded with.

This led to the formation of the Commission on Finance in the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1912, promoted by the Laymen’s Missionary Movement. Though ultimately ineffective because of its dependence on the agencies it was to regulate, it was an early attempt at central coordination of the finances of denominational agencies.

Then came the Mission Centenary in 1919. One aspect of the Centenary was a fundraising campaign. The Centenary fundraising campaign was somewhat unique in that it was a joint campaign on behalf of the Board of Foreign Missions, the Board of Home Missions, and the Board of Education of the MEC. These three boards agreed to work together on the fundraising campaign and then split the receipts according to a pre-determined formula.

While the fundraising campaign did not collect everything that had been pledged, this centralized approach to fundraising and division of denominational dollars was a relative success. That experience of centralized fundraising, along with concerns about debts incurred by the Board of Foreign Missions, led to the creation in 1924 of the World Service Commission, forerunner of the General Council on Finance and Administration, and the centralized denominational apportionment system.

Instead of each agency competing for local church and individual giving, the denomination as a whole asked each congregation to collect a certain amount in apportionments, which would then be divided among the agencies according to formulas established by the World Service Commission.

A centralized financial system allowed General Conference, both directly and through the World Service Commission, to promote ideals of efficiency, accountability, and coordination in the business of connectional ministry. Interestingly, General Conference 1924 rejected a proposal to create a single denominational agency, feeling that the goals of efficiency and accountability could be sufficiently realized through central financial control without requiring central administrative or programmatic control.

There were downsides to the apportionment system. It allowed agencies to become somewhat disconnected from the perspectives and desires of their constituencies, since they no longer needed to respond to pressures from local churches and average individuals to ensure their on-going financial support. Instead, denominational insider perspectives and the perspectives of large donors became more influential, since these were the groups who did have a significant impact on the agencies’ bottom lines.

Moreover, the apportionment system did not completely end the process of direct fundraising by agencies, and developments such as The Advance in 1940 created new opportunities for direct, second mile giving by congregations and individuals. The Advance, both in its denomination-wide and annual conference forms, has become a particularly important channel for the flow of connectional funds outside the apportionment system.

Nor did apportionments completely end board and agency competition, as anyone who has been around the denomination long enough is aware. Nevertheless, the apportionment system shifted the site of much of that competition from local churches to internal denominational mechanisms such as General Conference, the General Council on Finance and Administration, and the Connectional Table (and the predecessors of these latter two). In this way, much of the competition was only visible to denominational insiders and not the average member of the denomination, lay or clergy.

Whatever its weaknesses, the development of the apportionment system was revolutionary. It assured boards and agencies that their core functions would be funded, and it simplified giving for congregations and individuals. The apportionment system has become a robust and central means of funding connectional ministries in American Methodism. Although initially adopted by the MEC, this system of centralized denominational financing for connection ministries through apportionments persisted through the various of Methodist mergers of the 20th century, becoming the backbone of connectional ministry financing in the UMC.

But nothing lasts forever. The apportionment system is already facing pressures, and these are not likely to go away any time soon. As United Methodists contemplate the situation of denominational agencies now and the possible financial futures of connectional ministries, this history is highly relevant. Another post next week will explore that topic further.

The Perils and Promises of Economic Analysis of Religion

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.

One of the distinctive aspects of my writing, both on this blog and elsewhere, has been a focus on the economic aspects of mission and church. Whether that's exploring the impact of different financial models of mission in the early 20th century, determining the relative significance of American vs. indigenous economic support of church work, giving an overview of the assets of The United Methodist Church, or detailing how Methodist mission in Malaysia handled shipping of goods and monetary remittances, attention to the business of mission and church has been a frequent focus of mine.

I am not alone in following this "business turn" in religious studies. While not nearly as significant as the "cultural turn" in the 70s, attention to the intersection of religion, business, and economics has become a noticeable focus for many scholars in the past 5-10 years.

I want to give an account of what I think is at stake in such an approach to the study of religion, at least for me as a scholar. I will do so through two pairs of perils and promises--or, in other words, potential pitfalls and potential payoffs.

One potential pitfall of taking an economic approach to the study of religion is that it become reductionist in nature. While saying that money matters, one must be careful not to imply that money is the only thing that matters when it comes to moving the levers of history or driving people's engagement with religion. Nor is it just Marxist approaches that can make such a mistake. The cultural logic of late stage capitalism can be just as reductionist by seeing events and people only in terms of their economic value or capacity. Such an approach erases people's fundamental humanity and ignores the power of ideas and other forces that shape history.

Yet, while focusing exclusively on economic understandings of religion prohibits a full understanding of religion and humans, so does ignoring the economics of religion. It is easy to assume that religion is all about ideas, or perhaps about ideas, culture, and power, while ignoring the very real economic considerations that go into the practice and propagation of religion. Thus, one promise of including an economic analysis of religion is that it gives us a fuller picture of how people are religious rather than an idealized or sanctified picture that ignores such "grubby" considerations as money. Money is a real consideration, even for the devout, and it must be acknowledged as such.

A second potential pitfall is related to the above remark about the cultural logic of late stage capitalism. There has been an increasing tendency over the past several decades for economic language and economic logic to take over all aspects of life. Even how we think about such things as friendship, citizenship, love, and art has become increasingly structured by a logic of quantified loss and gain articulated through a series of economic metaphors. I think such totalizing of economic reasoning is ultimately destructive of our full humanity. And when we use economic language figuratively in our analysis of religion, such as when I compared mission stations to franchises, we risk furthering this trend of being able to think only in economic terms.

The corresponding payoff, though, of highlighting the economic logic people bring to religion, even when that logic is used in figurative ways, is that by highlighting it, it makes that logic seem less inevitable. If we become aware of how capitalism has shaped our thinking, even about religion, then we are closer to being able to think about religion (and the rest of the world) in other terms. It is made clear that such language and logic is a choice, and we could choose to see the world differently.

Ultimately, my participation in the business turn in religious studies is motivated not by a high valuation or appreciation of what money can do but rather by a suspicion of the distorting and corrupting influences that money can have, whether on individuals, organizations, or cultures.

The cultural turn in religious studies did much to focus scholars' attention on the ways in which power was accumulated and deployed within the practice of religion. This style of analysis is at times a useful tool in understanding religion and highlights important moral and ethical questions. Yet, it tends to ignore the interaction between money and power by focusing instead on culture and politics.

The business turn has the potential to provide a similarly useful tool by raising similar questions about who benefits and why with regard to the economic practices associated with religion. It is not the only tool scholarship needs, but it is an important one to include in the scholarly toolkit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eng Ben Rafemoyo: Zimbabwe's Centralized Clergy Salary Payment System, the ‘Common Pool’

Today's post is by Dr. Eng Ben Rafemoyo, Chairman of the Council on Finance and Administration (CONFAD) of the Zimbabwe West Annual Conference (ZWAC). It is the third in a series on missional appointments and models of pastoral payment. See here for the introduction and here for the German model.

The United Methodist Church (UMC) is one of the so-called mainline churches in Zimbabwe, with strong presence in both rural and urban areas across the country. The church employs both clergy and lay workers, and the pastors are on an itinerant appointive system. Salaries (base compensation) for pastors are determined through the use of a grading system that takes into account the individual’s training, qualifications, and years of service. In this, the hope is that some semblance of equity is maintained.

Until ten years ago, the payment of salaries and allowances was the responsibility of the circuit (charge) to which a pastor is appointed. The charge was expected to also care for the pastor’s housing, transport, communication, etc. However, the demographics and economic capacities vary from one charge to the other, with some circuits being financially poor to the extent of failing to meet these basic obligations. This was more common in rural areas than was the case in most urban areas. These disparities would obviously put paid to the achievement of equity and the general wellbeing of some pastors and their families. Given a choice in such circumstances, every pastor preferred to get an appointment a more able urban charge/circuit. With over 68% of the Zimbabwe population being in the rural areas, this is not possible; churches in the rural areas also need pastors.

Challenges
Though pastoral work is not just a job but a calling, the pastor has responsibilities to provide for his immediate and extended family like any other person. Pastors serving in those impoverished communities would go for several months without a salary and/or allowances, while their counterparts in well-to-do charges would be better looked after. In the past, it was not difficult at huge gatherings, such as Annual Conferences, to identify those serving in impoverished rural circuits by their general presentation as compared to their well-cared-for colleagues.

No doubt, it must have been a daunting task for the Bishop and his cabinet to carry out appointments: Who do you send where? Because of those known disparities, those who were fortunate to receive appointments to serve better-off charges were viewed as being more favored, and of course those that ended up at poorer circuits were considered disliked by the leadership. Of cause these were mere perceptions and not backed by facts. Each change in appointment meant a change in one’s standard of living, either for the better or worse. Pastor’s children had to endure economic and social changes, with new appointments at times disrupting their education when the parents suddenly became unable to pay school fees.

Strategy to Deal with the Challenges
During Annual Conferences, year in and year out the matter of pastors’ salaries (base compensation) and the lack of equity consumed a great deal of time and energy. Being an emotive issue, such discussions would always end up in an antithesis of “Holy Conferencing”.

The Book of Discipline ¶ 624 provides for the following: “Each church or charge has an obligation to pay the base compensation, the benefits adopted by the Annual Conference, and other ministerial support (including housing) adopted by the Charge Conference, to its pastor(s)” No doubt this concept worked somewhat well in the past, but with the increased disparities among the charges in terms of financial capacities, the glaring lack of equity in base compensation and pastors going without salaries for several months could not be allowed to continue.

There was therefore a clarion call for a paradigm shift and the need to think outside the box. The church leadership considered a number of options and ended up settling for the introduction of the “Common Pool” centralized salary payment system for pastors. The benefits were obvious, among them the equitable base compensation and guaranteed salary payment to all pastors on time every month regardless of their geographic location. The pastor is able to focus on his/her calling and mission work instead of focusing on his/her economic challenges.

Like all new concepts and ideas, the resolution took much longer to implement than had been anticipated. Several years went by before there was a shared vision and adequate buy-in by all stakeholders. There was a time some were starting to feel that the resolution was never going to see the light of the day. Some of us were convinced that this was a good idea maybe ahead of its time, and at the right time, a shared vision will materialize. Indeed, this came to pass, and in 2010 the Common Pool was finally implemented successfully. This year marks the ten-year anniversary since the introduction of the Common Pool. No Pastor has gone unpaid since the inception of the Common Pool, we thank God. A total of 332 Pastors are currently benefitting from the new salary payment system. In the past, pastors’ benefits like funeral coverage and medical aid were not guaranteed, as both depended on the financial capacity of each circuit, let alone the pastors’ pension contributions. Now all these benefits are guaranteed as they are catered for through the Common Pool.

The Common Pool Funding Structure and Logistics
A 40% levy was introduced on the standard income lines, such as tithing, Sunday offerings, Thanksgiving, and any other undesignated funds. However, the said levy does not apply on designated funds and any such other special fundraising efforts by the charge, such as building funds, among others. Every charge remits the 40% levy on a weekly or monthly basis direct to the Conference Treasury, and the remaining 60%, along with the other designated funds will be used by the circuit to fund its mission work within the charge. On its part, the Conference Treasury Department, in close consultation with the Council on Finance and Administration (CONFAD), will put aside 25 – 30% of the levy towards the Common Pool. Salary payments for all the Pastors are then paid from the Conference Treasury directly into each individual’s bank account, at least by the 25th of every month. Other benefits such as medical aid and funeral coverage are also paid from the Common Pool directly to the service providers.

We are pleased that in spite of the economic challenges we are facing as a country—inflation and erosion of disposable income among others—the levy has sustainably provided capacity to pay salaries and benefits without fail.

The pie chart below illustrates the fact that the 40% levy stands out as the mainstay of the Conference income, accounting for 74% of the total annual income for the year under review.

Coming second as a major income line is the Harvest Thanksgiving at 15%, with the rest of the other smaller income lines accounting for the remaining 11% combined. We are hoping to grow this levy further in order to create capacity to cater for payment of all other allowances, such as transport, communication, office consumables, and the like. Currently this is already happening, where the Conferences pay the said allowances only in cases where the charge has failed to do so due to lack of capacity; we call them “unable circuits.”

If there is one major achievement we are proud of as a church during the last decade, it is without doubt the implementation of the Centralized Clergy Salary Payment System (Common Pool). It has worked for us, and we have no hesitation to recommend the system as a solution to address the many challenges associated with the decentralized obligation to pay the base compensation to pastors.

Gabriel Straka and Bishop Harald Rückert: The Salary System for Pastors of the Germany Central Conference

Today’s post is by Superintendent Gabriel Straka of the Commission for Finance and Labor Law of the Germany Central Conference and Bishop Harald Rückert, bishop responsible for the Germany Central Conference. It is the second in a series on missional appointments and pastoral payment models. See here for the series introduction.

Overview of the Salary System (by Gabriel Straka)
For the pastors of the Germany Central Conference of The United Methodist Church (the EmK—Evangelisch-methodistische Kirche), there is a uniform salary and pension system. Salary and pensions are regulated in the Book of Discipline of the EmK (the VLO – Verfassung, Lehre, und Ordnung der EmK) under Articles 911 and 912, as well as in special regulatory texts (VI.281 and VI.282).

In this system, all charges pay a levy to the three annual conferences, with which the conferences finance all costs of supra-regional work, including salary and pension costs. Pastors are therefore not paid by the local congregation but by the annual conference.

The salary of the pastors of the EmK in Germany consists of the basic salary, a rent-free parsonage or apartment, and, if necessary, a child supplement. The amount of the basic salary is determined annually by the Commission for Finance and Labor Law of the Central Conference, in which the three annual conferences work together, and agreed upon by the Central Conference Executive Committee. Since the annual conferences are financially autonomous, they can decide on deviations from the common pay scale, which they do in practice.

The basic salary increases over the course of the years of service. At the start of service, it is 88% of the amount reached after 21 years of service.  This means that pastors in Germany earn almost the same amount. The salary is paid regardless of the size or financial strength of the local congregation.

In addition to the basic salary, a Christmas allowance and, if necessary, a heating allowance are paid for all employees. There are also certain services for which an allowance is paid. Here, too, these allowances are borne by the annual conferences.

The pastor’s entire salary and also the value of the rent-free parsonage or apartment is taxed. Salaries and pensions are administered via a central accounting office for the whole of Germany.

Retired pastors receive a pension payment from the Church, the amount of which is also based on the current salary scale.

Advantages of the System (by Bishop Harald Rückert)
We experience the following advantages through our salary system:

• When it comes to new assignments for pastors, the question of salary plays no role, as our salary scale shows that everyone earns the same regardless of the location in which they are supposed to serve.

• Small congregations that face financial difficulties still have the chance to receive a pastor to help them start a new missionary endeavor. The cabinet can set missionary priorities regardless of salary issues.

• The system strengthens the idea that pastors are sent to a certain place by the church, or rather, the bishop.

• This means that pastors are more independent of the internal dynamics of their congregations, as they are not paid directly by them. This can make it easier for them to act as helpful counterparts to the congregation or to individual groups in the congregation, if necessary. They are at the same time always representatives of the whole Church.

Pastoral Payment and Missional Appointments

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 Methodist tradition is distinct among streams of Protestantism in practicing ministerial appointment. Appointment means that bishops (in the UMC; other titles apply in other Methodist bodies), in consultation with others (the cabinet, ministers, and congregations), assign ministers to serve congregations. Both ministers and congregations get input in that process, but the ultimate decision of which ministers serve which churches is up to the bishop and her cabinet.

This appointive approach contrasts with a call system, which is employed by most Protestants with a primarily congregational polity (such as Baptists, UCCs, and Presbyterians), in which a congregational committee puts out a job posting for a minister, screens applicants, and ultimately decides whom to hire. There are modified call systems, such as those used by the Lutherans and Episcopalians, in which bishops help connect churches looking for ministers and ministers looking for churches. Nevertheless, in these modified call systems, congregations still make the final decisions about who to hire as a minister.

There are good and bad aspects of all these systems of matching pastors and congregations. One of the positives often touted about the Methodist appointment system is that it allows for a more “missional” approach to deploying ministers. In the words of the Indiana Conference:

“We believe that missional appointments will be strategic in attempts to match the characteristics of the congregation and community with the gifts and strengths of the pastor to maximize our fruitfulness in the transforming work of reaching people with the Gospel and leading them to become and live as disciples of Jesus. We will expect to be very intentional to pair our brightest and best pastors with churches that have demonstrated a high degree of readiness to make disciples.”

To ensure that pastoral gifts and ministry contexts match, the Book of Discipline (¶ 427) states, “Appointments shall take into account the unique needs of a charge, the community context, and also the gifts and evidence of God’s grace of a particular pastor.” The goal is for the church and ministry context to which a pastor is appointed to fit “with gifts, evidence of God’s grace, professional experience and expectations, and the family needs of the pastor” (BOD ¶ 428.5.a).

In the United States, there is one important criterion in pastoral appointments that is not explicitly spelled out on this list: finances. The BOD mentions the “financial condition” of a church as a sub-point on a list of relevant information about congregations (¶ 427.1.a), but that underscores the role of congregational finances in the appointive process.

In the United States, United Methodist clergy are predominantly paid by the congregation they serve. Health insurance, pensions, and other benefits are usually pooled through the annual conference or denomination, but take-home pay comes from the congregation. Most annual conferences have equitable compensation funds that can supplement the amount a congregation pays so that clergy are still paid the conference minimum salary. Equitable compensation funds, though, tend to be used in limited situations rather than as a main means of funding pastoral payrolls in US annual conferences.

Thus, because pastors are paid by congregations and because not all congregations can afford to pay their pastor the same amount, the cabinets of US annual conferences must take finances into consideration when making appointments. In general, pastors are not given pay cuts when they are assigned to new congregations. Thus, pastors are only assigned to congregations that can pay them as much or more than their last congregation.

This creates a career ladder system within the US apportionment system that introduces a variety of considerations other than missional fit when making apportionments. Cabinets must consider pastors’ previous salaries, churches’ ability to pay, and where pastors could go in future appointments. Pastors have a financial incentive to seek appointment to better-paying churches, since that will impact their income potentially for the rest of their careers. This also puts pastors in competition with one another, since the number of high-paying churches in any given annual conference is limited.

These additional factors limit cabinets’ abilities to make appointments based on purely missional reasons. If there is a church and ministry context that would fit very well with a particular pastor’s ministry skills, but that congregation can only pay the minimum salary, and the pastor currently makes more than minimum, it is highly unlikely that she/he would be appointed to that church, regardless of how well her/his gifts fit the missional opportunities present.

Moreover, while one of the benefits of the appointive system is that it ensures women and racial and ethnic minorities are given appointments, the congregational payment system can lead to compounding systemic discrimination against women and minorities in their income. If white men are given better churches early in their career, whether that is because of unconscious bias by congregations or cabinets, gendered assumptions about the need for men to be primary breadwinners, or because some churches “just aren’t ready for a woman/minority pastor,” that is a financial leg up that will continue to boost that white man’s earnings above those of his female and minority colleagues for the rest of his career.

Thus, the two main benefits of the appointive system—missional fit and ensuring the rights of women and minorities—are undermined by the congregational payment system used in the US church.

The congregational payment system, however, is not required. Nowhere is it prescribed in the Book of Discipline, nor is it the only option under US law. Indeed, several branches of United Methodism outside the United States have adopted a different system, in which the annual conference, episcopal area, or central conference pays all pastors out of a central pool of money. This centralized approach to paying pastors has the potential to overcome the problems outlined above with a congregational system of payment.

In the coming weeks, UM & Global will profile two examples of centralized systems of paying pastors: those used in Germany and in Zimbabwe. These two examples, which will be written up by the people running those systems, are offered up as model for the US church to learn from and to potentially consider for their own adoption.

What Happens If GC2021 Does Not Happen? Part II: Budgets, Boards, and Bishops

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 explained last week, there is real reason, based on the best available expertise on how the coronavirus pandemic may play out, to expect that the General Conference delayed to August/September of 2021 may not happen. If true, this further postponement would raise significant questions about how the denomination will address pressing problems and keep the machinery of the denomination running. This piece will examine what a further delayed General Conference would mean for denominational budgets, boards, and bishops.

Budgets
General Conference sets the denomination’s quadrennial budget, and this power is reserved to this body. Other groups, especially GCFA and the Connectional Table, have a role in proposing a budget to General Conference, and GCFA has a good deal of authority to administer apportionment money and set payout rates based on the budget, but General Conference makes the budget. No General Conference in 2021 means no updated budget for the denomination.

It is easy enough to roll over current budgets, and GCFA has indicated that they will continue to operate based on the previous quadrennium’s budget until General Conference convenes in 2021, though they recognized that this decision was taken on shaky authority. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons (membership declines, denominational division, the pandemic, the economy) the UMC’s budget going forward will need to be different and smaller than the previous quadrennium’s budget.

What then happens in this situation? Does the UMC continue to operate based on percentages of the 2016–2020 budget, since that was the last one approved, even if it does not reflect the financial realities of the church? This would impose proportional cuts on all budget lines. Or is there some move to try to prioritize within these cuts? If so, who will have the authority to make these difficult decisions?

Boards
Board members for most denominational boards and agencies and chosen following General Conference, though not directly by it. General Conference does appoint members to certain denominational committees, such as the Judicial Council, University Senate, and study commissions. For now, these boards, agencies, and committees have asked their members from last quadrennium to continue to serve until new members can be elected following General Conference 2021.

But that becomes more difficult the longer the situation endures, especially if denominational division happens in the meantime. If people are no longer United Methodist, they are presumably no longer serving on United Methodist boards, agencies, or committees. Even for those who remain United Methodist, life circumstances may change in a way that prohibits members from continuing to serve. In some cases, changed life circumstances (new jobs, retirement, shifted family responsibilities) may make some members unwilling to continue to serve. In other more severe instances, circumstances (death, major illness) may make some members unable to continue to serve.

Boards typically have some amount of fluctuation in membership, and in normal times, they are set up to handle that fluctuation. But if a significant portion of the membership of the board does not continue, that can raise issues that impact the board’s ability to function, including quorum, officers, etc. Especially if responding to significant budget reductions or selecting new leadership, a fully functioning board can be quite important to an organization. Boards and agencies are likely to not wait indefinitely to replenish their membership if needed, even if this means departing from convention.

Full membership is potentially quite important for the Judicial Council as well. Although there are alternates for the Judicial Council, it is still possible that the Council could end up short of members before the next General Conference. And if there are significant judicial issues surrounding denominational division, it would be very important to have a fully functional Judicial Council. The alternative is that judicial review becomes less significant in the denomination.

Bishops
General Conference does not elect bishops (at least not anymore.) But Jurisdictional and Central Conferences, which do elect bishops, are set to happen after General Conference. No General Conference likely means no Jurisdictional or Central Conferences. Jurisdictional and Central Conferences may also face the same sorts of pandemic-related restrictions that could scuttle GC2021.

If Jurisdictional and Central Conferences are further postponed, it raises questions for bishops’ tenure and replacement. In most instances, active bishops have agreed to postpone their retirement and continue to serve through 2022, when successors elected at delayed Jurisdictional and Central Conferences could begin their terms.

But bishops may not be willing to do the same until 2023 or 2024. And some active bishops may leave with the WCA. This may leave episcopal vacancies. How would they be filled? Would remaining bishops then cover expanded territories? Would bishops be called back out of retirement?

Alternatively, significant numbers of churches in an episcopal area might leave with the WCA, leaving a bishop supervising a much smaller number of remaining churches. How could episcopal areas be reconfigured without Jurisdictional or Central Conferences to do so?

The upshot is that a further delayed General Conference may have a significant impact on the extent and quality of episcopal leadership in the denomination over the next four years.

Two Takeaways
On all of these issues, and on issues surrounding denominational division, authority and leadership will be devolved to lower levels of the denomination, whether that is individual churches deciding to leave with the WCA, GCFA and the Connectional Table making budget decisions, boards and agencies deciding how to fill board vacancies, or district superintendents stepping up to cover some duties during episcopal transitions. As part of this trend, local churches will probably have to get along with less support from the denomination at a time when they are already under great strain from the pandemic. Many pastors may decide to retire early or leave ministry as a result.

The corollary of this devolution of leadership is that not just General Conference, but the Book of Discipline will be undercut as a source of authority. The Book of Discipline did not anticipate and made no provision for many of the extraordinary circumstances in which the church now finds itself. That means that people will need to find ways to run the church in the next couple of years that skirt around or, in some cases, flat out ignore what the Book of Discipline says. A Judicial Council hobbled by incomplete membership would be less able to resist this trend.

Once the Book of Discipline becomes something that can be ignored in certain circumstances, though, a precedent has been set. It will become easier to ignore the Book of Discipline in the future, even under less dire circumstances.

That scenario of a diminished Book of Discipline is likely unavoidable. But it is another sign that, even when things return to “normal” post-pandemic, it will no longer be business as usual as it was before the pandemic. We—individuals, churches, and as a denomination—will bear the impacts of the present pandemic on us for a long time to come.

UM & Global Collections on Assets and Finances

The latest pair of UM & Global collections both include compilations of posts written by UM & Global blogmaster David W. Scott about assets, money, finances, and church structure.

The first collection, "A Primer on UMC Assets," includes a series of twelve posts about United Methodist denominational assets, examining what these assets are, what assets are owned by different units of the church, how these assets are impacted by the trust clause, and what might happen to these assets in various scenarios of division of The United Methodist Church.

The second collection, on "Mission, Ministry, and Finances," includes eighteen posts that examine issues related to the financing of church infrastructure, apportionments, financial subsidies of the central conferences by the United States and Europe, episcopal and pastoral salaries in Africa, and internal financial capacities of the central conferences. The posts included in this collection are intended to help readers reflect on how financial arrangements impact the church's missional partnerships and what sorts of ministries the church is and is not able to do.

Both collections include discussion questions for reflection on the included pieces. In both cases, these discussion questions are intended to help students, annual conference leaders, General Conference delegates, local church leaders, and others to think wisely about how our money does and should shape our mission.

The Traditionalist Bid for Africa

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.

With the postponement of General Conference until the end of August 2021 and plenty of other things to focus on, especially a global pandemic and a movement for racial equality, many United Methodists in the United States, especially centrists and progressives, have been relatively distracted from denominational politics. In addition, key foci of progressive and centrist agitating—annual conference ordination ceremonies and weddings—have been among the events most disrupted by the pandemic.

So-called Traditionalists, however, have continued to push forward with their plans for creating a new denomination. The Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) has continued to release drafts of portions of a new Book of Discipline. United Methodist Traditionalists, sometimes working with ecumenical partners from other Wesleyan/Holiness churches, have also launched new media channels including an online magazine and a podcast to promote their point of view.

Key within on-going Traditionalist efforts to create a new denomination has been a focused attempt this summer to recruit African United Methodists to join that new denomination. These attempts are evident in surveying a variety of blog posts and articles across Traditionalist outlets.

Keith Boyette of the WCA re-stated the goal in a June 12 post on the WCA site entitled “The Beauty of a Global Church.” In the piece, he wrote, “We will only be the church Jesus is building if we are truly global in every way.” Although Boyette disclaimed, “Being a global church is not simply about having churches around the world and members from every nation,” having churches around the world is an express goal of the UM Traditionalist movement. “That is rudimentary,” he said.

Global ambitions are not new for Traditionalists. Just after General Conference 2019, Traditionalist theologian Billy Abraham wrote about “the genuinely global nature of our enterprise” and hinted that other (even non-United) Methodists from around the world might be interested in joining “an orthodox, global, intellectually vibrant, Spirit-energized, socially engaged version of Methodism.”

Yet this summer’s developments go beyond US traditionalists re-stating their global ambitions. A number of articles have sought to undercut the African bishops as leaders and to assure Africans that their financial interests will be taken care of in a new, Traditionalist denomination.

The summer has seen pieces by Africa Initiative leaders Jerry Kulah (May 26 interview by the Institute on Religion and Democracy’s Mark Tooley) and Forbes Matonga (June 15 article in Firebrand) in which they have opined on the future of the UMC. Matonga’s piece in particular makes the case that the unofficial, unelected Africa Initiative is the true representatives of African United Methodism, not the polity-provided, democratically elected bishops.

Moreover, Matonga writes, “If Africa is allowed freely to choose its future, it will definitely go with the conservative side of the church. But given the manipulation, intimidation, and pure dishonesty by a few powerful African bishops, the African church shall split just like what is happening to the American church.” This sets up African affiliation with US Traditionalists as the default, normalizes division within the African church, and undermines the bishops as a source of leadership by labeling their leadership efforts as “manipulation, intimidation, and pure dishonesty.”

In a further attempt to undermine African bishops as a source of leadership, Good News Magazine’s Tom Lambrecht published two pieces “Violations in Central Congo” on July 17 and “Looking for Accountability in North Katanga” on July 27. These two pieces lay forth allegations of misconduct by Boards of Ordained Ministry and bishops against pastors and laity in the Congo who were disciplined by the church. Lambrecht asserts that the Boards and bishops violated processes laid out in the Book of Discipline, while failing to acknowledge that the Book of Discipline that is operative in the Congo is an adaptation and translation of the 1988* Discipline, not the 2016 English-language Discipline.

Whatever the merits of the complaints, the impact of the pieces is to undercut the bishops as leaders. They cast Bishops Lunge, Mande, and Unda as liberal on the questions of gay ordination and gay marriage (by their willingness to stay within The United Methodist Church), with the complainants as the real Traditionalists. Lambrecht writes, “The underlying issue behind the singling out of some pastors and laity for punishment has to do with the church’s position regarding marriage and human sexuality,” although the reality is almost certainly more complex than this reduction of the conflict to a single issue that is most salient in the US, not Africa. It characterizes the bishops’ actions as flowing from a lack of accountability and implies that their political opponents within the UMC would fair better under a Traditionalist church with “a more robust accountability mechanism for bishops at the global level.”

Funding is also a concern in a number of pieces appearing this question. Questions about funding are a significant portion of Mark Tooley’s interview of Jerry Kulah cited above, though Kulah, as in past statements, does not seem concerned about funding as a major factor that should impact the church in Africa’s decision.

In early June, the WCA announced recipients of its Central Conference Ministry Fund. The WCA awarded just over $200,000 in grants, mostly to Africa, with a promise of another $100,000 in grants to be announced in November. This announcement was made with great fanfare, despite the yearly total representing as little as 0.3% of the yearly total support by US United Methodists of their sisters and brothers in the central conferences.

June also saw another trial balloon for mechanisms of Traditionalist funding of African ministers. A piece by Davies Musigo, a United Methodist pastor in Kenya, on the Traditionalist-oriented Spirit & Truth site for which he serves as Africa Regional Director, included an appeal to give to Spirit & Truth’s “Kenya Fund.” No information has been released on how much was collected in this way.

John Lomperis of the Institute on Religion and Democracy wrote a three-part article in which he argues that United Methodists in the central conferences would be better served financially to affiliate with a Traditionalist denomination. He first critiques a centrist talking point about 78% of global UMC funding coming from centrist and progressive US United Methodists. Then, using data from this blog in misleading ways, Lomperis argues that, because local church partnerships represent a major source of US funding for the central conferences, a significant portion of US funding is Traditionalist-provided, though Lomperis does not offer hard numbers for the amount of local church partnerships or annual conference apportionments that come from Traditionalist congregations. Finally, while acknowledging that US giving overall will decline and that cross-denominational financial partnerships will be possible, he asserts that Traditionalists have the financial best interests of United Methodists outside of the US at heart, while centrists and progressives want to cut their funding.

Thus, the Traditionalist argument is clear: United Methodists in Africa should affiliate with a new, Traditionalist denomination because of their views on sexuality. Even if their bishops oppose such a move, their leadership is illegitimate. Plus, affiliating with Traditionalists is in Africans’ financial best interests.

Most Traditionalist United Methodists, as well as most centrists and progressives, honestly believe that those United Methodists outside of the United States would be best served by continuing to be affiliated with them. Ultimately, it is up to Africans to decide which case is more convincing. The unfortunate point is that Africans are being forced to choose sides and, in the process, divisions that originated in the US are being spread to other areas of the world.

* An earlier version of this article originally indicated that the BOD used in the Congo is an adaptation of the 1984 BOD. The 1990 Africa Central Conference BOD is an adaptation of the 1988 BOD.

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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