UM & Global: schism

Showing posts with label schism. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 4, 2024

Wednesday, August 21, 2024

Jefferson Knight: The Threat of the Global Methodist Church in Africa: A Call for Unity and Resistance

Today's post is by Jefferson B. Knight. Knight is the Director, Human Rights Monitor, LAC/UMC and Vice President, Men's Organization, Kakata-Farmington River District/UMC.

In recent years, a troubling trend has emerged within the religious landscape of Africa. The Global Methodist Church (GMC), a denomination that recently splintered from the United Methodist Church (UMC) in the United States, is aggressively campaigning across the African continent with a singular goal: to destabilize and dismantle the UMC. With millions of dollars at their disposal, the GMC’s actions raise significant concerns about their intentions and their impact on African communities.

The GMC has successfully recruited several key leaders from the UMC in Africa to assist in their mission, a move that threatens not only the unity of the church but also the very fabric of community life across the continent. Notably, Bishop John Wesley Yohanna, the former Bishop of the Nigeria Episcopal Area, has joined their ranks, lending credibility to an organization whose agenda is increasingly perceived as divisive and destructive.

At the heart of the GMC's campaign is a controversial issue: same-sex marriage. By framing their opposition to the UMC around this topic, the GMC seeks to exploit cultural sensitivities prevalent in African societies. However, it is imperative to understand that homosexuality is not an African issue—it is predominantly an American concern. Many of the challenges and debates surrounding this topic are rooted in Western contexts, and it is disheartening to witness the GMC impose its beliefs on African nations, where traditional values and norms differ significantly.

Since the conclusion of the General Conference and the subsequent endorsement of regionalization plan, the GMC has intensified its attacks on the UMC throughout Africa, targeting countries such as Liberia, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe. Their campaign has not been without consequences. In Nigeria, recent events revealed a coordinated effort to incite chaos and violence against UMC congregations. Similarly, Bishop Samuel Quire of the Liberia Episcopal Area was attacked by GMC sympathizers during one of his visits to the Gompa District UMC.

These acts of violence reflect a deeper, disturbing reality: the GMC is willing to resort to intimidation and aggression to achieve its goals. Such actions are unequivocally un-Christian and contradict the very teachings of love, compassion, and unity that lie at the heart of Christianity.

Furthermore, the GMC has attempted to delegitimize the UMC by making unfounded accusations, branding it as an “unbiblical” church that endorses immoral practices such as fathers marrying their daughters and mothers marrying their sons. These statements are baseless and serve only to sow seeds of discord among congregants. The GMC's tactics echo those of other organizations that seek to manipulate religion for their own power and control—a strategy all too familiar in the history of colonialism in Africa.

As Africans, we must stand firm against the encroachment of the Global Methodist Church and its divisive agenda. It is essential that we foster unity within the UMC and resist attempts to fracture our community. We must openly condemn the violence perpetrated by GMC supporters and reaffirm our commitment to the principles of peace, dialogue, and understanding.

The United Methodist Church shall stand firm in Africa, fortified by the promise of Scripture. As declared in Matthew 16:18-19, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

We stand resolutely in faith, believing that no scheme or evil plan aimed at undermining the UMC will succeed. Just as Christ proclaimed, our foundation is built upon His truth and love, and the forces that seek to destabilize us will be met with unwavering resistance through prayer, unity, and steadfast commitment to our mission. The authority bestowed upon us enables us to confront challenges with courage, knowing that we are supported by divine power. Together, we will uphold the teachings of Christ, ensuring that our church remains a beacon of hope, love, and resilience across the continent. The United Methodist Church is here to stay, and with God’s grace.

In conclusion, the Global Methodist Church poses a significant threat to the UMC and the broader African Christian community. Their tactics amount to a form of neo-colonialism that seeks to undermine local agency and exploit cultural differences for their gain. We must reject their agenda and work together to preserve the integrity and unity of our churches, ensuring that Africa's religious future remains firmly in the hands of its people. Let us embody the true spirit of Christianity—one of love, acceptance, and solidarity—and rise against this insidious threat.

Thursday, August 24, 2023

David Scott: Looking at autonomy and connection together

Like annual conferences in the United States, some European conferences are struggling with conflicts, particularly over sexuality in the church. Some have chosen to become autonomous, while others have chosen disaffiliation.

The Czech Annual Conference is an example. During annual conference sessions in May, delegates voted to become an autonomous church, no longer part of The United Methodist Church. To become autonomous, the Czech church will follow the procedure laid out in Paragraph 572 of the denomination’s Book of Discipline. The Eurasia Episcopal Area also chose to follow Paragraph 572.

Other branches of Methodism in Europe have selected different methods to separate from the denomination – a unilateral declaration in the case of Bulgaria and Slovakia and a process negotiated with the central conference for Estonia. Other branches of The United Methodist Church in Europe or elsewhere could similarly decide to use Paragraph 572 to become autonomous.

These recent developments raise theological and polity questions. What is an autonomous church? Where did Paragraph 572 originate? Is autonomy just another name for disaffiliation? What does autonomy mean for the future of connectionalism?

“Autonomy” means “self-ruling.” An autonomous church makes its own polity. Differing degrees of autonomy can be practiced by differing bodies within the church. A congregation has autonomy over its building-use policies and program calendar. An annual conference has autonomy over its clergy deployment.

An “autonomous church” is generally understood as a separate body or denomination that makes its own polity and policy decisions without additional input by a larger church body. The Discipline’s Paragraph 570 defines an “autonomous Methodist church” as “a self-governing church of the Wesleyan tradition.”

Paragraph 572 allows individual or groups of annual conferences outside the U.S. to self-govern in all matters, no longer subject to the decision-making of the United Methodist General Conference. For a church to become autonomous by following Paragraph 572 requires annual conference, central conference and General Conference approval. (For more on that process, see this primer.)

The earliest version of Paragraph 572 was added to the Discipline in 1964 in response to the desire by branches of The Methodist Church in Asia and Latin America to become autonomous. These requests came at a time when former colonies were asserting their political independence and, therefore, their autonomy in political matters. In many cases, the church also sought religious autonomy. (For more on that history, see “Autonomy, international division mark United Methodist tradition” and “The History of the Global Connection, Part 2.”)

While the wave of church autonomy related to decolonization crested in the 1970s, the provision for autonomy remained in the Discipline. It was most recently used in 2012 to allow the Swedish Annual Conference to enter into an ecumenical union with the Mission Covenant and Baptist denominations in that country.

Previous instances stemmed from political realities in secular society or from the desire for ecumenical merger, but the current requests are related to conflicts over sexuality within the church. Especially in the case of Russia, other political and cultural factors are also at work.

That difference in intention raises a theological danger: that we will conflate autonomy and disaffiliation.

Autonomy is a church body’s desire to make its own decisions. Disaffiliation is a church body’s desire to separate from another part of that body. The two impulses may coincide. Separation from a church body allows independent decision-making, and doing so when those decisions once were jointly made implies some separation. Yet, autonomy and disaffiliation are not the same.

Autonomy and connection can go together. This expectation is reflected in language from Paragraph 572 and surrounding paragraphs. “Affiliated autonomous Methodist churches” maintain a formal connection to The United Methodist Church, whereas “affiliated united churches” result when Methodists merge into an ecumenical body.

Every autonomous or united church formerly connected to The United Methodist Church or The Methodist Church is now an affiliated Methodist or affiliated united church. In the past, branches of Methodism sought to become autonomous with the assumption that connection with The United Methodist Church would continue through nonvoting participation at General Conference, the Council of Bishops, agencies and other means.

Autonomy and connection can go hand in hand. Bishop Aldo Etchegoyen led a portion of the church that became autonomous from The United Methodist Church (the Evangelical Methodist Church, Argentina), while Bishop Emerito Nacpil led a portion of the church – the Philippines Central Conference – that continued to be part of the denomination.

Etchegoyen called for “connectionality with responsibility,” in which each church is responsible for its own identity and its own government but also shows its “historical, theological and ecclesial unity.”

“The vision of a global church,” Nacpil wrote, “relates or links autonomy and connectionality organically and essentially. In a global church, one cannot have one without the other.”

While it does not involve Paragraph 572, the current conversation around regionalism is about autonomy and connectionalism within The United Methodist Church. It will undoubtedly take a good deal of conferencing, consulting and time for The United Methodist Church to propose, test and refine theological and practical answers. That is as it should be. But our process of grappling with these questions will be aided if we understand autonomy as a positive theological quality that needs to be paired with, rather than opposed to, connectionalism.

For more historical and theological insights on autonomy and connectionalism, see “Church Autonomy and the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS): A UM & Global Collection.”

Thursday, May 11, 2023

David W. Scott: Differing trajectories of separation

In a recent commentary, I noted that connectionalism has organizational, relational and theological dimensions. I pointed out that the current wave of separations from The United Methodist Church raises questions about the possibilities of ongoing connectionalism among the congregations and conferences that have historically made up the denomination.

In this commentary, I will emphasize that the question of future connectionalism depends not only on the type of connectionalism — organizational, relational or theological — but also on how that process of separation looks.

Separation plays out in different ways, and differing trajectories have big implications for future connectionalism. Recent examples from Europe and the United States help illustrate.

Europe
In mid-March, the Northern Europe and Eurasia Central Conference held a special session. One purpose was to act on proposals by the Eurasia Episcopal Area and the Estonia District of the Estonia Annual Conference to separate from The United Methodist Church. However, the two separations are playing out differently from each other, as are the separations of Bulgaria and the Slovak Republic of the Central and Southern Europe Central Conference.

Last year, branches of The United Methodist Church in Bulgaria and the Slovak Republic decided unilaterally to exit the church immediately and to join the Global Methodist Church. (Romania voted with the rest of the Bulgaria-Romania Provisional Annual Conference to leave The United Methodist Church but has not yet done so.) Bishop Patrick Streiff ruled that in so doing, the Bulgaria-Romania Provisional Annual Conference violated church law, a view shared by some Judicial Council members.

Regardless of the legality under church law, the separations occurred, and the church in both countries joined the Global Methodist Church. This has, at least for now, completely ended formal, organizational connectionalism between The United Methodist Church and Methodists in Bulgaria and the Slovak Republic and effectively terminated most relational connections as well.

Last summer, Estonia also voted to withdraw from The United Methodist Church. Estonian Methodists, however, opted not to leave immediately but, rather, to give themselves a year to negotiate with Bishop Christian Alsted and the Northern Europe and Eurasia Central Conference to create a departure process. Moreover, they intend to become autonomous rather than to join the Global Methodist Church.

The result of that year of negotiation was a formal motion adopted by the central conference to approve Estonian separation. The motion requires the Estonian church and The United Methodist Church to work together on various transitional aspects and includes an “agreement of mutual respectful relationships for the future.”

Thus, the agreement seeks to preserve some degree of relational connectionalism, even as organizational connectionalism shifts. It is unclear if any organizational connectionalism will continue after the short-term cooperation around the separation process, especially since the path Estonia is taking is not formally recognized by worldwide United Methodist polity.

The annual conferences of the Eurasia Episcopal Area voted last December to seek to become an autonomous church by following Paragraph 572 of the Book of Discipline, the official pathway laid out for church branches outside the United States to depart from the denomination.

While Bulgaria and the Slovak Republic’s decision was immediate, the Eurasian process will be slow. Paragraph 572 requires signoff by the annual conferences involved, the central conference, the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters and the General Conference. The Eurasian Episcopal Area’s decision to select this more onerous process may, ultimately, have more to do with features of Russian law than with church politics.

Nevertheless, this path leaves more options open for future connections. The Eurasian request currently seeks autonomy but not future affiliation with The United Methodist Church (“autonomous” and “autonomous affiliated” being separate categories in United Methodist polity). Moreover, in their resolutions for autonomy, two of the four Russian annual conferences mention “possible affiliation with a new Methodist denomination,” presumably the Global Methodist Church. If the Eurasia Episcopal Area joins the GMC, that step would probably foreclose any future connectionalism with The United Methodist Church. If they remain autonomous, however, going through a by-the-rules separation process would facilitate ongoing relational connections with those who remain in the denomination.

Thus, three different paths to separation in Europe have created three different trajectories in terms of future connectionalism (relational and organizational) with The United Methodist Church.

United States
In the United States as well, different trajectories toward separation from the denomination produce different implications for the future of connections between churches, whether leaving or staying. While separations or disaffiliations have been governed in the United States by Paragraph 2553, approaches by annual conferences and churches leaving the denomination have ranged between cooperative and antagonistic. In some instances, the conflict has escalated to lawsuits by churches seeking to leave. In other instances, charges and countercharges of misrepresentation and manipulation have resulted.

Such acrimony makes a Michigan congregation’s recent decision to separate all the more interesting. Cornerstone United Methodist Church, the church with the largest attendance in the Michigan Annual Conference, recently voted to disaffiliate and become nondenominational.

One might assume that opting to become nondenominational means rejecting connectionalism, but the Rev. Ken Nash, Cornerstone’s pastor, said, “We like being networked and connected. We love the idea of connectionalism.” While this statement might seem surprising, Nash continued, “We want to have connection in the future. It just doesn’t have to be as formalized.”

In other words, Cornerstone wants connectionalism that is more relational and less organizational. Cornerstone’s hope to maintain such connectionalism with The United Methodist Church is further evidenced by their intention to work with the annual conference to help provide for members who wish to remain United Methodist and their intention to continue supporting La Nueva Esperanza United Methodist Church in Grand Rapids. But this move would also allow them to “be in relationship with other denominations,” as the Michigan Conference article announcing the change said.

Cornerstone United Methodist Church is certainly an exceptional case among disaffiliating U.S. churches because of the degree to which they seem intentional about maintaining a connection to The United Methodist Church. And it matters that they are becoming nondenominational rather than joining the Global Methodist Church.

Across the United States, disaffiliating churches are opting for a variety of post-UMC futures by joining the Global Methodist Church or other denominations such as the Free Methodist Church or by becoming independent and experimenting with other new denominational or connectional forms.

Therefore, as with different national branches of Methodism in Europe, congregations in the United States have approached the process of separation and the anticipated denominational status of separating church in various ways. These different approaches set up different trajectories toward varying levels and forms of ongoing connectionalism (or not).

The question, “In what way, if any, will those departing The United Methodist Church and those staying be in connection?” does not have an answer. It is a question with dozens, even thousands, of answers as different congregations, groups of congregations and United Methodist conferences around the world decide how separation will occur and what will follow it.

The denomination’s future in the United States is not yet entirely clear and cannot yet be fully anticipated. While it is easy for Americans to point to the reunification of the Methodist Episcopal, Methodist Episcopal South and Methodist Protestant churches, we can find only one example of separated churches reuniting.

Thursday, April 6, 2023

David W. Scott: The many meanings of connectionalism

Connectionalism is a fundamental part of what it means to be church for Methodists.

But recent divisions in and separations from The United Methodist Church have raised a host of questions about the meaning of connectionalism: If some people and churches leave The United Methodist Church, are they still “in connection” with United Methodists? If so, in what way? If The United Methodist Church has connectional relationships with other Methodist denominations such as the AME Church, could it develop similar relationships with the Global Methodist Church? What about churches that leave The United Methodist Church to become independent? Are they still connectional, or have they lost something distinctly Methodist?

To begin answering such questions, one must look at the many possible meanings of connectionalism. Methodists have varied ways in which they connect with one another and with other Christians. These varied ways include organizational, relational and theological dimensions of connectionalism.

Connectionalism as organization

For many, the term “connectionalism” brings to mind denominational structures. Indeed, denominational structures are one of the most important ways that United Methodists connect to one another. Nevertheless, the concept of denomination is a modern one and one that is understood differently in different parts of the world.

Methodists connected to one another before our current denominational structures and connect with others outside those structures as well. Thinking of connectionalism in terms of denominational structures and, more broadly, in terms of organizational linkages highlights several important forms of connectionalism.

First, it emphasizes the important link between connectionalism and conferencing. In John Wesley’s days, the “connexion” was those preachers who conferenced with Wesley. Connectionalism was defined by conferencing. Since Wesley’s days, various forms of conferencing – from local charge conferences to General Conference to the World Methodist Conference – have continued to be important means for Methodists to connect with one another.

Yet the varying levels of conference also highlight the complexity of connectionalism as defined by organizational connections. Two United Methodists in Minnesota may have a fairly direct connection because they are part of the same General Conference, jurisdictional conference and annual conference. A United Methodist in Alabama and one in Angola would be connected less directly by the General Conference but would also be separated by central/jurisdictional conference and annual conference (in addition to language and culture!). Moreover, both the United Methodist in Alabama and the one in Angola would be in some sense connected to a Methodist in Argentina through the World Methodist Conference, even though they were in separate denominations. Within and beyond The United Methodist Church, conferencing both connects and distinguishes varying groups of Methodists.

Mentioning Argentinian Methodists raises the question of inter-denominational connectionalism. Indeed, The United Methodist Church as a whole has a variety of bilateral and multilateral connections with other denominations. Here again, variety proliferates. There are at least five different forms of bilateral interdenominational connection alone (concordat, affiliated autonomous, affiliated united, covenanting and full communion). The United Methodist Church is part of many multilateral ecumenical groups, including the World Methodist Council.

Moreover, the different levels of conferencing and variety of inter-denominational connectionalism can intersect to produce an exponentially greater number of possible forms of connection within and beyond Methodism. Many central conferences and annual conferences have direct ecumenical relationships with other church bodies, either bilaterally or multilaterally. United Methodists in Wisconsin are bilaterally connected to Methodists in Bolivia, and United Methodists in the Democratic Republic of Congo are connected to many other denominations through that country’s council of churches.

Organizational connections abound even further at the local level. A United Methodist congregation may be connected to an AME congregation (along with Lutherans, Baptists, Church of God in Christ and others) through a local ministerial association or through a joint agreement to support a particular social ministry. The variety of such local forms of organizational connectionalism are beyond counting.

What characterizes all this dizzying array of organizational connectionalism within and beyond Methodism is formal agreements among those organizations. Such arrangements make the rules, rights and responsibilities involved in organizational connections clear. Put another way, organizational connection includes explicit agreements about joint decision-making, finances, programming, accountability, etc.

These sorts of organizational connections are the ones that are most directly being changed when individuals and churches leave The United Methodist Church. Changes in organizational status raise questions about the rules, rights and responsibilities that had previously held. It is clear that those leaving The United Methodist Church will not have the same rights and responsibilities in the denomination as they previously had — nor will they be bound by the same rules. It remains a significant open question what, if any, new forms of organizational connections (out of the many possible forms on many possible levels) will come to exist among those remaining United Methodist and those formerly in the church.

Connectionalism as relationship

While organizational forms of connection within and beyond The United Methodist Church as a denomination are important, they are far from the only way Methodists connect. As I have written about with regard to European Methodism, personal relationships can be just as central to how Methodists connect with one another as formal organizational ties.

Here again, roots of a relational understanding of connection can be traced back to John Wesley. The earliest Methodist conferences were not formal organizations but rather gatherings of people that had personal relationships with Wesley. Developing Methodist organization grew out of pre-existing relationships among Wesley and the early Methodist preachers and class leaders.

The first conferences were not only relational but focused specifically on conversation. Thinking of connection in terms of communities of conversation remains relevant today. Whether those conversations happen via social media, scholarly discourse or official ecumenical dialogue, participating in conversations about what it means to be Methodist is one of the things that makes someone Methodist and part of the Methodist connection.

Of course, Methodists are not focused just on talking; they are people who believe that one’s faith should be lived out in one’s actions. Thus, another important way in which Methodists connect relationally is by collaborating in mission and ministry.

Sometimes this collaboration can take the form of formal, organizational connections. But there are countless examples of informal collaboration among Methodists within and beyond The United Methodist Church that are based on the personal connections of those involved in the work, not on a formal organizational contract. Such informal collaborative connections are especially important at the local level, where Methodists work with one another and others to run soup kitchens, carry out evangelistic campaigns, lobby for policies and share discipleship resources.

A deterioration in such interpersonal, relational connections has both preceded and precipitated the current breaking of organizational connectional ties. Breaking such organizational ties will continue to rend personal connections. Indeed, much of the angst that people feel over the severing of organizational connections is driven by concerns for what that will mean for relationships.

Connectionalism as theological principle

Formal organizational ties and interpersonal relationships are concrete and tangible expressions of connectionalism. But behind these practices of connectionalism lie theological understandings of connectionalism. A theological understanding of connectionalism affirms that the true nature of the church must include the bonds among congregations. This view contrasts with a congregational understanding of the church, in which each congregation is by itself fully the church. A belief in connectionalism is connected to beliefs about the unity of the church and the catholicity of the church.

Some of the concern about the present denominational division within The United Methodist Church is a theological concern for what this division expresses about our belief in or realization of the unity of the church. This concern is fair. Yet as a theological principle, concepts like the unity of the church and connectionalism are not dependent upon human practices but rather rooted in the divine will. All Christians are connected to one another by their mutual connection to Christ, whether we recognize those connections or not and however well (or poorly) we live them out.

Shifting senses of connectionalism

As I have indicated above, the current denominational division has raised questions about organizational, relational and theological understandings of connectionalism. In particular, shifting organizational and relational connections are deeply intertwined. A breakdown in relational connections makes an organizational separation easier to contemplate, which has further implications for relationships.

A theological view of connectionalism can either be a source of anxiety or reassurance amid these fracturing organizational and relational connections. We must also take seriously the possibility that as organizational and relational forms of connectionalism are reconfigured, this may shift theological understandings of connectionalism.

As United Methodists and Global Methodists grapple with how to relate to one another, either directly, indirectly (through common participation in multilateral groups like the World Methodist Council), and programmatically (through common use of Wespath services, for instance), how will these new forms of practical organizational and relational connectionalism lead to new insights about or changed interpretations of connectionalism as a theological principle?

For Methodists within and beyond The United Methodist Church, fidelity to the Methodist tradition demands that we grapple with such questions.

Wednesday, January 25, 2023

5 UMC Story Lines for Spring 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, December 9, 2022

Recommended Viewing: UMVIM on Mission amid Division

Rev. Matt Lacey, Executive Director of UMVIM - Southeastern Jurisdiction, released a recent video statement on "UMVIM, SEJ and UMC Conflict" and then hosted a follow-up livestream on that topic and other issues related to UMVIM teams post-pandemic. In both videos, Rev. Lacey states that UMVIM will continue to be a United Methodist entity, as it has been, and will continue to work with constituents from a variety of denominational backgrounds, as it has been. The most moving parts of both videos, however, are the pleas that Rev. Lacey issues for denominational division not to detract or distract from the work of God's mission. Lacey expresses his concern that division will harm mission work or lead to withdrawal of support from mission projects. As a theological alternative, Lacey lays out a vision of mission as a source of unity across boundaries, one which is heartily commended.

Friday, October 21, 2022

Monday, October 10, 2022

Wednesday, August 24, 2022

5 UMC story lines to follow this fall

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

US Disaffiliation

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

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

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

Plans for General Conference 2024

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

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

Proposals for the future of the UMC

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

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

Episcopal elections

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

European disaffiliation

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

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

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

Friday, August 5, 2022

Wednesday, June 29, 2022

A global re-negotiation of separation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, June 1, 2022

Autonomy, international division mark United Methodist tradition

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries. This piece originally appeared as a commentary on the United Methodist News Service site and is republished here with permission.

In April, the Bulgaria-Romania Provisional Annual Conference voted to leave The United Methodist Church and join the Global Methodist Church upon its launch on May 1.

This action created a disagreement with Bishop Patrick Streiff, the bishop of the Central and Southern Europe Central Conference, over the proper procedure for the Bulgarians and Romanians to leave The United Methodist Church.

While Bulgarian leaders claimed authority to make such a decision via conference vote alone, Bishop Streiff pointed to Book of Discipline Paragraph 572 as laying out the proper and only means by which an annual conference within the central conferences can leave The United Methodist Church.

Paragraph 572 spells out the process by which a portion of the church outside the United States may become autonomous. Streiff's ruling of law, which references Paragraph 572, is now up for review by the Judicial Council, The United Methodist Church's top court. In the meantime, the Council of Bishops has voted to affirm Streiff’s ruling.

This current debate and its implications for the ongoing process of denominational division have piqued interest in Paragraph 572 and the history of church autonomy in the United Methodist tradition. What branches of Methodism outside the United States have become autonomous, and why? Yet as a review of the history of autonomy shows, there are no easy analogies for the present situation.

The very first example of an international branch of a predecessor to The United Methodist Church becoming autonomous is the Methodist Church in Japan in 1907.

At the time, the Methodist Episcopal Church, Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and Canadian Methodist Church all conducted mission work in Japan. Japanese church leaders and missionaries came to agree that the divisions between the three churches were not relevant in Japan. Autonomy allowed the three different missions to separate from their home denominations and unite with one another as a new church. The new Japan Methodist Church continued to maintain collaborative relationships with the three denominations from which it was birthed — a trend that would continue in subsequent instances of Methodist autonomy.

The motivation of autonomy for the sake of intra-Methodist merger was repeated in 1930 in Korea and Mexico. In both instances, the Methodist Episcopal Church and Methodist Episcopal Church, South, supported mission work in the same country. That mission work had grown, developed indigenous leadership, and had taken on increasing internal structure. While those two U.S. denominations were at the time in talks to merge, local leaders and missionaries agreed that it made sense for the branches of the church in Korea not to wait for the U.S. church but instead to separate from the U.S. church and unite with one another. The same decision was reached in Mexico.

In later years, especially in the 1960s, this impulse to seek autonomy for the sake of local merger would extend beyond the Methodist tradition. In Belgium, Hong Kong, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Pakistan and Spain, in Evangelical United Brethren work in the Philippines, and most recently in Sweden in 2012, branches of The Methodist Church, the Evangelical United Brethren Church or The United Methodist Church outside the United States decided to separate from international (and predominantly U.S.-based) denominations for the sake of local ecumenical merger with Christian churches from other Protestant traditions.

If the desire for ecumenical merger represents one major impetus toward autonomy, the desire or need for local independence represents the other major force for autonomy. The first such instance was the decision by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to grant autonomy to its mission work in Brazil, a decision also made in 1930. Methodists in Brazil and the United States agreed that the Brazilian church would flourish better if able to make more of its own decisions locally, though the process by which the general church acted to establish an autonomous Brazilian Methodist Church received mixed reactions in Brazil. At issue was the desire among Brazilians for some sort of continued connection with Methodists in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in the United States.

In the mid-20th century, the push for local decision-making was often entangled with the desire or need to be seen, for political reasons, as separate from Western-dominated church structures. Countries around the world were throwing off the shackles of colonialism, and this extended to the church as well. Churches desired more autonomy from Western decision-making structures or found that they needed such autonomy to escape local political suspicion. As in Brazil, this did not mean Methodists wanted a complete cessation of ties to U.S.-based denominations, and negotiations over the specific form of continued connection were sometimes contested.

This push for national independence kicked off a great wave of autonomous Methodist churches branching off from The Methodist Church, the Evangelical United Brethren Church and The United Methodist Church, especially in Latin America and Asia. This wave began in The Methodist Church in 1964 with Myanmar and Indonesia.

As part of the 1968 merger that created The United Methodist Church, all conferences of the Evangelical United Brethren Church outside the United States became autonomous, though the churches in Sierra Leone and Nigeria have subsequently rejoined The United Methodist Church.

Many national branches of The Methodist Church became autonomous in 1966, 1968 and 1972, including Cuba, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Malaysia and Singapore, Peru, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, Panama and Taiwan. This wave continued through the autonomy of the Methodist Church in India in 1980 up to the autonomy of the Methodist Church of Puerto Rico in 1992.

The current disciplinary provisions for conferences outside the United States to become autonomous date to this era. While affiliated autonomous churches were first recognized in The Methodist Church’s 1940 Book of Discipline, a regular process for becoming an affiliated autonomous church was not added until 1964. What is now Paragraph 572 was added to accommodate either local ecumenical mergers or moves to national autonomy, but its origins are in the era of postcolonial rethinking of what sorts of international relations should characterize Methodism.

The challenge in applying Paragraph 572 to the current situation of international division between The United Methodist Church and the Global Methodist Church is that the separation is neither a local ecumenical merger nor a move toward national independence. This does not mean that Paragraph 572 cannot or should not be applied in the current situation. That is a question for the Judicial Council and other denominational leaders to sort out. It does mean that historical moves toward autonomy are poor analogies for the sort of situation in which the church now finds itself.

If there are no good analogies for the division between The United Methodist Church and the Global Methodist Church in the history of autonomy, neither are there many good analogies in the history of denominational division. As has been widely noted by other commentators, there are plenty of precedents for denominational division in the Methodist tradition. However, almost all the examples frequently cited are limited to the United States. They were not international divisions of an international church.

The African Methodist Episcopal Church, African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church and Methodist Protestant Church all separated from the Methodist Episcopal Church before it operated missions outside the United States.

When the Wesleyan Methodist Church, Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and Free Methodist Church split from the Methodist Episcopal Church, the denomination’s foreign mission work stayed with the Methodist Episcopal Church, though each of these new denominations would go on to develop their own foreign mission work. When the United Evangelical Church split from the Evangelical Association in 1891, existing denominational foreign mission work stayed with the Evangelical Association, though again the United Evangelical Church quickly established international work of its own.

To these American splits, one could add a history of denominational divisions in other countries, a process that continues to the present. Church splits in the Philippines, Chile, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and elsewhere are also part of the heritage of division in the United Methodist tradition. Yet these splits occurred within a single country and were not international in scope. Therefore, they are also limited as historical analogies.

The only denominational split of which I am aware in which church members in more than one country had to choose which side to take was the 1889 split in the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, which originated in the United States but extended to mission work in Sierra Leone and China. This case certainly deserves additional attention, but there is not space to expand on it here.

To say that there are no good historical precedents for the sort of international division that The United Methodist Church is beginning to undergo does not mean that such division is impossible. The recent decision of the Bulgaria-Romania Provisional Annual Conference shows that an international division of The United Methodist Church is not only possible, it is already happening.

What the lack of historical precedents does mean is that the process of international division is likely to be unpredictable, and existing processes and polity provisions may not be well suited to the purpose. Polity is a system of rules, and rules are predicated on an assumption of regularity. Unprecedented circumstances, whether those are a global pandemic or an international church split, challenge existing polity precisely because they are irregular and therefore do not fit within existing practices and procedures.

Therefore, leaders in all parts of The United Methodist Church will be challenged to think creatively about how best to respond to situations for which there are no provisions in existing church law and very few historical models to guide them.

Wednesday, May 11, 2022

Creating a Respectful and Fair Separation

Today’s post is a translation of Klaus Ulrich Ruof’s article “Trennung respektvoll und fair gestalten,” first published on the website of the Evangelisch-methodistische Kirke, the UMC in Germany. The translation is by UM & Global’s Dr. David W. Scott.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, April 8, 2022

Wednesday, March 16, 2022

What now? African disaffiliation

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. It is the second in a series examining issues in The United Methodist Church following the further postponement of General Conference to 2024. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

With the postponement of General Conference, the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation is, at best, on hold for another two years and, at worst, a dead proposal. Therefore, Traditionalists have announced that they intend to proceed with the launch of the new Global Methodist Church on May 1st, thus beginning the process of forming that new denomination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pages