Many in the United States will be traveling this weekend to celebrate the Memorial Day holiday. So, in the spirit of travel, here is a recommended set of video resources related to mission and travel. Rev. Max Marble is a retired member of the Missouri Annual Conference. He is the son of Methodist missionaries to India. Over the past 14 years, he has maintained a YouTube channel. The channel is a mix of content, some of it personal, but much of it related to his involvement in mission. Marble made a long-running series of "MissionCast" videos on topics related to his work and that of the Missouri Annual Conference. He has made videos about his on-going connections to India, including several trips there. Most recently, he has been serving with NOMADS, traveling the country to participate in short-term mission projects with other retirees. In his videos, Marble is a charming and personable voice for a United Methodist life devoted to mission.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Friday, May 27, 2022
Recommended Viewing: Max Marble's Mission Musings
Wednesday, May 25, 2022
African United Methodists and the Protocol in 2024
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.
Zimbabwean Traditionalist UMC leader Rev. Forbes Matonga recently wrote a piece entitled "Waiting in Africa: The Impact of the Postponement of General Conference." That piece plus additional remarks made by Matonga and others on a recent episode of the WCA's podcast offer fruitful material for thinking about how various African United Methodists may approach the 2024 General Conference.
In the podcast, Matonga states what Bishop Quire of Liberia has previously stated and what Bishops Quire, Kasap, and Yohanna reiterated over the weekend at an Africa Initiative event: Africans allied with US Traditionalists intend to remain in the UMC until the 2024 General Conference. In the podcast, Congolese Traditionalist UMC leader Kimba Evariste expresses a personal desire to leave the denomination before then, which is notable, but the overall Africa Initiative strategy seems to be to stay in the denomination and to push for adoption of the Protocol, as Matonga indicates in his article.
In his article, Matonga expresses confidence that, backed by African support, the Protocol will pass. He correctly notes that if delegate numbers are recalculated between now and General Conference 2024, that recalculation will benefit African influence at the expense of American influence. Based on that math and an assumption that the same global coalition that has turned out for Traditionalist initiatives in the past will turn out for the Protocol in 2024, Matonga confidently asserts that the Protocol will pass.
But Matonga's second assumption bears questioning. As is made more fully clear in the podcast, Matonga is expecting all Africans, most to all Filipinos, all Eastern Europeans, and US Traditionalists to vote together for the Protocol. This is the coalition of votes that has preserved traditional stances on marriage in the UMC Book of Discipline in recent decades.
But Matonga misses the important point that the Protocol is a different issue that the denomination's official teaching on sexuality, and the same coalition will not necessarily support the Protocol just because they believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Matonga himself notes that the number of US Traditionalists at General Conference will be lower than in past years. This will be especially true if Traditionalists leave the denomination and the new delegates are elected, but based on election results for 2020, it will be true regardless.
As Jonathan Razon of the Philippines makes clear in the podcast, Filipino bishops are currently effectively promoting the idea of unity among Filipino United Methodists, including General Conference delegates. A vote for the Protocol could likely be seen as a vote against unity and therefore unacceptable to Filipino voters. Hence, Filipino voters seem less likely to support the Protocol than to support a traditional definition of marriage.
While the Bulgaria-Romania Provisional Annual Conference voted to leave the UMC (and thereby taking their two General Conference votes with them), the indication is that most to all other European branches of the church outside the Eurasia episcopal area intend to stay in the church and thus may be uninterested in the Protocol. Critically, that includes areas of Eastern Europe such as Poland and Estonia that are traditional on questions of marriage but may not be in support of the Protocol.
Then we come to Africa itself. I have yet to hear an African suggest that they would welcome a change in the denomination's teachings on sexuality. However, as the past three years have made clear, there are a variety of African views on the denomination's future that are not at all determined by their (unanimous) opposition to gay marriage and gay ordination.
The Africa Initiative is clearly aligned with US Traditionalists in promoting the Protocol. But even Jerry Kulah of the Africa Initiative was initially critical of the Protocol, and Evariste's remarks indicate that there may be some groups allied with the Africa Initiative that find it difficult to keep up the fight for the next two years and instead leave the UMC in their own mini-schisms.
Moreover, as much as the Africa Initiative would like to present themselves as the sole voice of African United Methodists, the past several years have shown they are at best one of several. African bishops remain a strong force, though views of the Protocol among them seem to vary. Some bishops have expressed allegiance towards US Traditionalists; others have moved against WCA-aligned leaders in their conferences.
The Africa Voice of Unity and the Christmas Covenant network represent two other, largely overlapping, groups of African leaders and General Conference delegates that seem to oppose the Protocol. The extent of this group and its opposition to the Protocol is further indicated by African signatories to the "A Call to Grace" letter.
Thus, with fewer US Traditionalists, without much support by Filipinos, with a few less votes from Eastern Europe, and with less solid support by Africans, the Protocol is unlikely to pass by the force of the same coalition that has prevailed at the previous several General Conferences. If it is to pass, it needs to draw on additional voters.
That does not, however, mean that the Christmas Covenant or a change in denominational stances on gay marriage and gay ordination are likely to pass. On the latter question of denominational teachings on sexuality, there is every reason to believe that the old coalition holds on this question. And because the Christmas Covenant requires a supermajority to pass constitutional amendments, there may be enough of the old coalition that hangs together on this issue to block its passage, as Matonga suggests.
The main takeaways here are two:
First, church observers need to start decoupling UMC leaders' views on sexuality and their views on the future of the UMC. Those are two very different questions that do not promote the same set of answers. Instead, one should think of the UMC as being dominated by a new set of denominational issues that creates a new set of denominational factions.
Second, without clear coalitions among these new denominational factions and with conflicting answers across different factions on different issues, there is a strong possibility that the 2024 General Conference will not accomplish anything major. As much as the denomination is beset by problems crying out for answers, divided factions along with entrenched conflict may mean that no major legislation comes out of General Conference 2024, further hollowing out the church.
Zimbabwean Traditionalist UMC leader Rev. Forbes Matonga recently wrote a piece entitled "Waiting in Africa: The Impact of the Postponement of General Conference." That piece plus additional remarks made by Matonga and others on a recent episode of the WCA's podcast offer fruitful material for thinking about how various African United Methodists may approach the 2024 General Conference.
In the podcast, Matonga states what Bishop Quire of Liberia has previously stated and what Bishops Quire, Kasap, and Yohanna reiterated over the weekend at an Africa Initiative event: Africans allied with US Traditionalists intend to remain in the UMC until the 2024 General Conference. In the podcast, Congolese Traditionalist UMC leader Kimba Evariste expresses a personal desire to leave the denomination before then, which is notable, but the overall Africa Initiative strategy seems to be to stay in the denomination and to push for adoption of the Protocol, as Matonga indicates in his article.
In his article, Matonga expresses confidence that, backed by African support, the Protocol will pass. He correctly notes that if delegate numbers are recalculated between now and General Conference 2024, that recalculation will benefit African influence at the expense of American influence. Based on that math and an assumption that the same global coalition that has turned out for Traditionalist initiatives in the past will turn out for the Protocol in 2024, Matonga confidently asserts that the Protocol will pass.
But Matonga's second assumption bears questioning. As is made more fully clear in the podcast, Matonga is expecting all Africans, most to all Filipinos, all Eastern Europeans, and US Traditionalists to vote together for the Protocol. This is the coalition of votes that has preserved traditional stances on marriage in the UMC Book of Discipline in recent decades.
But Matonga misses the important point that the Protocol is a different issue that the denomination's official teaching on sexuality, and the same coalition will not necessarily support the Protocol just because they believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Matonga himself notes that the number of US Traditionalists at General Conference will be lower than in past years. This will be especially true if Traditionalists leave the denomination and the new delegates are elected, but based on election results for 2020, it will be true regardless.
As Jonathan Razon of the Philippines makes clear in the podcast, Filipino bishops are currently effectively promoting the idea of unity among Filipino United Methodists, including General Conference delegates. A vote for the Protocol could likely be seen as a vote against unity and therefore unacceptable to Filipino voters. Hence, Filipino voters seem less likely to support the Protocol than to support a traditional definition of marriage.
While the Bulgaria-Romania Provisional Annual Conference voted to leave the UMC (and thereby taking their two General Conference votes with them), the indication is that most to all other European branches of the church outside the Eurasia episcopal area intend to stay in the church and thus may be uninterested in the Protocol. Critically, that includes areas of Eastern Europe such as Poland and Estonia that are traditional on questions of marriage but may not be in support of the Protocol.
Then we come to Africa itself. I have yet to hear an African suggest that they would welcome a change in the denomination's teachings on sexuality. However, as the past three years have made clear, there are a variety of African views on the denomination's future that are not at all determined by their (unanimous) opposition to gay marriage and gay ordination.
The Africa Initiative is clearly aligned with US Traditionalists in promoting the Protocol. But even Jerry Kulah of the Africa Initiative was initially critical of the Protocol, and Evariste's remarks indicate that there may be some groups allied with the Africa Initiative that find it difficult to keep up the fight for the next two years and instead leave the UMC in their own mini-schisms.
Moreover, as much as the Africa Initiative would like to present themselves as the sole voice of African United Methodists, the past several years have shown they are at best one of several. African bishops remain a strong force, though views of the Protocol among them seem to vary. Some bishops have expressed allegiance towards US Traditionalists; others have moved against WCA-aligned leaders in their conferences.
The Africa Voice of Unity and the Christmas Covenant network represent two other, largely overlapping, groups of African leaders and General Conference delegates that seem to oppose the Protocol. The extent of this group and its opposition to the Protocol is further indicated by African signatories to the "A Call to Grace" letter.
Thus, with fewer US Traditionalists, without much support by Filipinos, with a few less votes from Eastern Europe, and with less solid support by Africans, the Protocol is unlikely to pass by the force of the same coalition that has prevailed at the previous several General Conferences. If it is to pass, it needs to draw on additional voters.
That does not, however, mean that the Christmas Covenant or a change in denominational stances on gay marriage and gay ordination are likely to pass. On the latter question of denominational teachings on sexuality, there is every reason to believe that the old coalition holds on this question. And because the Christmas Covenant requires a supermajority to pass constitutional amendments, there may be enough of the old coalition that hangs together on this issue to block its passage, as Matonga suggests.
The main takeaways here are two:
First, church observers need to start decoupling UMC leaders' views on sexuality and their views on the future of the UMC. Those are two very different questions that do not promote the same set of answers. Instead, one should think of the UMC as being dominated by a new set of denominational issues that creates a new set of denominational factions.
Second, without clear coalitions among these new denominational factions and with conflicting answers across different factions on different issues, there is a strong possibility that the 2024 General Conference will not accomplish anything major. As much as the denomination is beset by problems crying out for answers, divided factions along with entrenched conflict may mean that no major legislation comes out of General Conference 2024, further hollowing out the church.
Monday, May 23, 2022
Nan McCurdy: Give Ye Them to Eat: Christ’s Mission to End Food Insecurity
Today's post is by Nan McCurdy. McCurdy is a Global Ministries missionary of the United Methodist Church in the state of Puebla, Mexico with Give Ye Them to Eat (GYTTE), a ministry with impoverished rural people that works in community-based health, sustainable agriculture, church and faith development, community development specializing in appropriate technologies and also with mission delegations from the US and Mexico called AWARE – Alternative Work-Study and Reality Experiences. Nan is also the editor of the weekly on Nicaragua, NicaNotes. This post is part of an occasional series on food and mission.
US congregations take Jesus’ words and actions seriously: in 2018, 48% of churches had their own food ministry or supported efforts run by other churches or organizations such as food pantries or food banks. These faith-based ministries often provide immediate help to hungry people with no requirements, unlike government programs. And more than two million people volunteer at a food pantry, soup kitchen, emergency shelter or after-school program in the US, working more than 100 million volunteer hours a year, according to “Hunger in America 2014,” a study conducted by Feeding America.
This wave of charity recognizes a serious problem in the United States: despite being a wealthy nation, food insecurity remains high. One in four people in our nation, the richest nation on earth, do not have adequate access to sufficient nutritious food needed for a healthy life.
In the US, the average percentage of households with food insecurity stayed between 10 and 15% from 1995 until 2020, when the numbers shot up. Despite volunteer and government food aid, hunger grew 9% from 2019 to 2020, when 38 million people were hungry.
In research by the Census Bureau in the week before Christmas 2021, 81 million people experienced food insecurity, and 45 million reported not having enough food. Families with children suffered most: the rate of hunger has been 41% to 83% higher for households with children than adult-only ones.
Twice as many Black households experience hunger than white households. During the pandemic, 19 to 29% of Black homes with children have reported not having enough to eat; 16 to 25% of Latino homes and 7 to 14% of white homes reported the same. 43% of Black households with children have experienced food insecurity during the pandemic – the highest rate in recorded history.
In the face of this pervasive food insecurity, Americans turn to a variety of sources for help.
More than 42 million people rely on SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. During Covid, the USDA increased the purchasing power of the plan by 21% for the first time since 1975. There were also emergency allotments that increased the amount of food stamps people got.
In 2019, 35 million people relied on food charity. Undocumented immigrants are more dependent on food pantries because they are excluded from government programs. Church-related food programs make a big difference for these people’s lives, especially for their children.
80% of households receiving food stamps had at least one worker, which indicates that millions of people do not earn a living wage.
US-Related International Food Insecurity
Hunger issues in the United States are connected to hunger issues elsewhere. US foreign policy has had a major effect on hunger and nutrition in developing nations for many years. US agricultural policy aggressively promotes creating markets for our farmers by promoting international reliance on US food exports.
The US subsidizes its own farmers to the point that products like corn and rice are actually sold below what would be the real price. In this way, we put small and medium-scale corn and rice producers out of business in developing nations. Most small farmers end up having to sell their land, leading to more large export-based farms – many now owned by US corporations.
Small and medium-scale farmers plant the food that local people eat like corn, beans, rice, vegetables, fruit, and they also raise farm animals in a much healthier way than corporations. But US policies have contributed to concentrating that land into the hands of large landowners and corporations. The US influences national policies so that it is very difficult for small and medium-scale farmers to get loans or any other kind of government assistance.
US loan policies are never aimed at the food security of the population of developing nations; instead, they promote production and export of products such as bananas, sugar, and coffee to the point that many developing nations are producing and exporting the same things. Thus, the international price stays artificially low which benefits people in wealthy nations, while people in developing countries benefit little from these exports. This whole process also leads to much more migration out of these countries.
An Example of Food Sovereignty for the United States and Other Nations
The small nation of Nicaragua in Central America has worked on ending poverty for the last fifteen years. One of the most important strategies has been to develop food security, and today they have reached approximately 90% food security.
This means that small and medium-scale farmers are producing 90% of the food that Nicaraguans eat. Their population is much more food secure in times of crisis, whether it be a climate-related crisis or a political crisis. There are no factory farms of cattle, pigs or chickens. There are large and corporate producers of export crops like sugarcane; but even coffee production for export is held more in the hands of small and medium-scale producers.
They had a major land reform in the 1980s that put land in the hands of nearly a million people. During three governments by and for the wealthy from 1990 to early 2007, much of that land returned to the wealthy. But government policies are helping poorer people legalize land for free, receive technical assistance and low-interest loans, and little by little more land is returning to small farm families.
Because of current Nicaragua policies that benefit the people instead of US corporations, the US has been doing many things to destabilize Nicaragua politically and even directed and financed a coup attempt in 2018. Although it didn’t fly, it cost the economy billions of dollars, and the US continues to try to destroy the excellent example Nicaragua is giving to the world. Just visit Nicaragua and you will see that another world is possible and that we could be employing similar food sovereignty policies in the US.
Corporate Profits Limit Food Security and Health in the United States
The Nicaraguan example requires envisioning agriculture beyond corporate monoculture. Monoculture production of grains on a large scale is not good for the land and requires enormous amounts of fertilizers and pesticides. Whereas sustainable farming practices control weeds, insects, and other pests with ecosystem management, farmers who monocrop are dependent on pesticides. Pesticides are linked to multiple health problems, including neurological and hormonal disorders, birth defects, cancer and other diseases.
Production of cattle, pigs, and chickens on a corporate scale is terrible for the environment, and there are many cases of water sources being polluted. Bacteria, viruses and nitrates can enter the supply; the community can be exposed to disease and nitrate poisoning. Nitrate poisoning is dangerous to infants, can lead to birth defects and miscarriages, and has been associated with esophageal and stomach cancers.
The volume of animal waste produced on factory farms is much greater than that of human waste. Animal waste is often stored in lagoons and applied, untreated, as fertilizer to farm fields. That excrement has pathogens such as E.coli residues of antibiotics, animal blood, bedding waste, cleaning solutions and other chemicals. Manure pit gases with hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and methane fill the air.
There is great overuse of antibiotics on factory farms – 80% of antibiotics sold in the world today are for corporate farming. Antibiotic overuse leads to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. These bacteria can jump to humans, causing pandemics. Pandemics are also associated with viral mutations promoted by crowding of animals in very small spaces.
Conclusion
In the United States, along with food charity, it is essential for Christians to become involved in changing food production policies that would support more small and medium-scale farmers who would be encouraged to use sustainable practices through loan policies, for example. We would also need an agrarian reform plan and laws to limit how big a farm can be so that we prioritize the health of our population instead of prioritizing the profits of corporations.
US congregations take Jesus’ words and actions seriously: in 2018, 48% of churches had their own food ministry or supported efforts run by other churches or organizations such as food pantries or food banks. These faith-based ministries often provide immediate help to hungry people with no requirements, unlike government programs. And more than two million people volunteer at a food pantry, soup kitchen, emergency shelter or after-school program in the US, working more than 100 million volunteer hours a year, according to “Hunger in America 2014,” a study conducted by Feeding America.
This wave of charity recognizes a serious problem in the United States: despite being a wealthy nation, food insecurity remains high. One in four people in our nation, the richest nation on earth, do not have adequate access to sufficient nutritious food needed for a healthy life.
In the US, the average percentage of households with food insecurity stayed between 10 and 15% from 1995 until 2020, when the numbers shot up. Despite volunteer and government food aid, hunger grew 9% from 2019 to 2020, when 38 million people were hungry.
In research by the Census Bureau in the week before Christmas 2021, 81 million people experienced food insecurity, and 45 million reported not having enough food. Families with children suffered most: the rate of hunger has been 41% to 83% higher for households with children than adult-only ones.
Twice as many Black households experience hunger than white households. During the pandemic, 19 to 29% of Black homes with children have reported not having enough to eat; 16 to 25% of Latino homes and 7 to 14% of white homes reported the same. 43% of Black households with children have experienced food insecurity during the pandemic – the highest rate in recorded history.
In the face of this pervasive food insecurity, Americans turn to a variety of sources for help.
More than 42 million people rely on SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. During Covid, the USDA increased the purchasing power of the plan by 21% for the first time since 1975. There were also emergency allotments that increased the amount of food stamps people got.
In 2019, 35 million people relied on food charity. Undocumented immigrants are more dependent on food pantries because they are excluded from government programs. Church-related food programs make a big difference for these people’s lives, especially for their children.
80% of households receiving food stamps had at least one worker, which indicates that millions of people do not earn a living wage.
US-Related International Food Insecurity
Hunger issues in the United States are connected to hunger issues elsewhere. US foreign policy has had a major effect on hunger and nutrition in developing nations for many years. US agricultural policy aggressively promotes creating markets for our farmers by promoting international reliance on US food exports.
The US subsidizes its own farmers to the point that products like corn and rice are actually sold below what would be the real price. In this way, we put small and medium-scale corn and rice producers out of business in developing nations. Most small farmers end up having to sell their land, leading to more large export-based farms – many now owned by US corporations.
Small and medium-scale farmers plant the food that local people eat like corn, beans, rice, vegetables, fruit, and they also raise farm animals in a much healthier way than corporations. But US policies have contributed to concentrating that land into the hands of large landowners and corporations. The US influences national policies so that it is very difficult for small and medium-scale farmers to get loans or any other kind of government assistance.
US loan policies are never aimed at the food security of the population of developing nations; instead, they promote production and export of products such as bananas, sugar, and coffee to the point that many developing nations are producing and exporting the same things. Thus, the international price stays artificially low which benefits people in wealthy nations, while people in developing countries benefit little from these exports. This whole process also leads to much more migration out of these countries.
An Example of Food Sovereignty for the United States and Other Nations
The small nation of Nicaragua in Central America has worked on ending poverty for the last fifteen years. One of the most important strategies has been to develop food security, and today they have reached approximately 90% food security.
This means that small and medium-scale farmers are producing 90% of the food that Nicaraguans eat. Their population is much more food secure in times of crisis, whether it be a climate-related crisis or a political crisis. There are no factory farms of cattle, pigs or chickens. There are large and corporate producers of export crops like sugarcane; but even coffee production for export is held more in the hands of small and medium-scale producers.
They had a major land reform in the 1980s that put land in the hands of nearly a million people. During three governments by and for the wealthy from 1990 to early 2007, much of that land returned to the wealthy. But government policies are helping poorer people legalize land for free, receive technical assistance and low-interest loans, and little by little more land is returning to small farm families.
Because of current Nicaragua policies that benefit the people instead of US corporations, the US has been doing many things to destabilize Nicaragua politically and even directed and financed a coup attempt in 2018. Although it didn’t fly, it cost the economy billions of dollars, and the US continues to try to destroy the excellent example Nicaragua is giving to the world. Just visit Nicaragua and you will see that another world is possible and that we could be employing similar food sovereignty policies in the US.
Corporate Profits Limit Food Security and Health in the United States
The Nicaraguan example requires envisioning agriculture beyond corporate monoculture. Monoculture production of grains on a large scale is not good for the land and requires enormous amounts of fertilizers and pesticides. Whereas sustainable farming practices control weeds, insects, and other pests with ecosystem management, farmers who monocrop are dependent on pesticides. Pesticides are linked to multiple health problems, including neurological and hormonal disorders, birth defects, cancer and other diseases.
Production of cattle, pigs, and chickens on a corporate scale is terrible for the environment, and there are many cases of water sources being polluted. Bacteria, viruses and nitrates can enter the supply; the community can be exposed to disease and nitrate poisoning. Nitrate poisoning is dangerous to infants, can lead to birth defects and miscarriages, and has been associated with esophageal and stomach cancers.
The volume of animal waste produced on factory farms is much greater than that of human waste. Animal waste is often stored in lagoons and applied, untreated, as fertilizer to farm fields. That excrement has pathogens such as E.coli residues of antibiotics, animal blood, bedding waste, cleaning solutions and other chemicals. Manure pit gases with hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and methane fill the air.
There is great overuse of antibiotics on factory farms – 80% of antibiotics sold in the world today are for corporate farming. Antibiotic overuse leads to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. These bacteria can jump to humans, causing pandemics. Pandemics are also associated with viral mutations promoted by crowding of animals in very small spaces.
Conclusion
In the United States, along with food charity, it is essential for Christians to become involved in changing food production policies that would support more small and medium-scale farmers who would be encouraged to use sustainable practices through loan policies, for example. We would also need an agrarian reform plan and laws to limit how big a farm can be so that we prioritize the health of our population instead of prioritizing the profits of corporations.
Friday, May 20, 2022
Recommended Reading: Filipino United Methodists Plan Episcopal Elections
The Philippines College of Bishops has announced a special session of the Philippines Central Conference, to be held Nov. 24-26. The main task of the conference will be to elect new episcopal leadership for the Philippines and to certify the retirement of all three current bishops. Additional central conference officers will also be elected. The Philippines had previously indicated an intention to hold episcopal elections before General Conference next meets in 2024, but this is the first instance in the UMC where the election of bishops has officially been announced in what is a world-wide need to replace retiring bishops. The fact that all three bishops will retire is significant as well. Whatever clergypersons are elected as bishops will collectively have a big responsibility for steering the Philippines Central Conference through a tumultuous time in the global church and in Filipino society.
Wednesday, May 18, 2022
Staying Stuck in UMC Conflict
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 it was announced in early March that General Conference would not meet until 2024, but the Global Methodist Church would launch on May 1, 2022, few people were happy, but there was at least for some a sense of relief, even if mixed with disappointment.
Followers of the UMC had been waiting for months to find out whether General Conference would meet in 2022 as previously indicated, or whether there would be yet another delay. That period of waiting was marked with tension and increasing conflict. When the Commission on General Conference's decision was released, at least it was something, rather than continued uncertainty. People could now get on with making plans.
Traditionalists were deeply disappointed that they would not get a chance to pass the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation in 2022. Traditionalist leaders decided, though, that it was best to commence with formation of a new denomination now rather than engage in more waiting for 2024. And among some Traditionalists and some Centrists/Progressives, there was a sense that it was time to get the separation over so as to move on and be able to focus on each group's own ministry rather than continued conflict.
Conflict, however, can be be a hard habit to break. In the two and a half months since the news broke that General Conference was not meeting until 2024 but the Global Methodist Church was launching this year, the UMC has shown itself to be locked in conflict.
There was immediate debate over how (US) congregations should leave the denomination. Centrists and institutionalists have used their control of procedure and process to make departure difficult and expensive for Traditionalist congregations in an attempt to prevent them from leaving. Traditionalist leaders have leaked negotiation documents, derided bishops, and sought polity work-arounds to yield more favorable terms for departure. African episcopal leaders associated with the Traditionalist movement have said they will stay in the UMC until at least 2024. The WCA also announced that it would continue to advocate in the UMC until at least 2024. The Judicial Council has ruled that annual conferences cannot unilaterally leave the denomination. And when the Global Methodist Church launched on May 1st, the only group everyone was sure was joining was Methodists in Bulgaria.
In short, the announcements of further General Conference delay and formation of the Global Methodist Church have done no more to resolve the conflict in The United Methodist Church than did the 2019 General Conference or the Commission on a Way Forward or any of the other many prior attempts to move past denominational conflict.
With harsh attitudes by all sides towards each other, good faith negotiation is difficult to find. The Protocol was a hard won compromise, initiated by a unique figure in Bishop John Yambasu and led by one of the top negotiators in the world in Kenneth Feinberg. After COVID prevented it from being voted on in May 2020, neither side has really been interested in returning to the negotiating table, and there is no visionary African bishop or world-renowned mediator to help this time.
And with US United Methodists unable to solve their conflict, Africans and others around the world who have been enlisted on one side or another of the fight are left to wait to figure out their own fates, yet again relegated to the status of supporting characters in a narrative centered on the United States.
Therefore, the UMC is facing the prospect of a 2024 General Conference (however constituted with whatever delegates attending and whatever legislation before it) that will be just as focused on conflict around the slow-motion separation of the denomination as it would have been had it met in 2020 or 2021 or 2022.
This is all painful to watch and does little to serve the gospel of Christ. There are real consequences to this on-going conflict, too. The structures of the denomination have already been battered by the COVID-necessitated delays in General Conference. There will be especially big consequences if the next General Conference, when it finally does meet, is unable to pass any major legislation, which remains a real possibility. It will lead to the further hollowing out of the denomination and many churches that are part of it.
But conflict is a strong drug. It can be a very difficult addiction to kick. There are practices and strategies that leaders throughout the denomination could implement to move beyond conflict. But right now, it doesn't look likely that the UMC will be doing so anytime soon.
When it was announced in early March that General Conference would not meet until 2024, but the Global Methodist Church would launch on May 1, 2022, few people were happy, but there was at least for some a sense of relief, even if mixed with disappointment.
Followers of the UMC had been waiting for months to find out whether General Conference would meet in 2022 as previously indicated, or whether there would be yet another delay. That period of waiting was marked with tension and increasing conflict. When the Commission on General Conference's decision was released, at least it was something, rather than continued uncertainty. People could now get on with making plans.
Traditionalists were deeply disappointed that they would not get a chance to pass the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation in 2022. Traditionalist leaders decided, though, that it was best to commence with formation of a new denomination now rather than engage in more waiting for 2024. And among some Traditionalists and some Centrists/Progressives, there was a sense that it was time to get the separation over so as to move on and be able to focus on each group's own ministry rather than continued conflict.
Conflict, however, can be be a hard habit to break. In the two and a half months since the news broke that General Conference was not meeting until 2024 but the Global Methodist Church was launching this year, the UMC has shown itself to be locked in conflict.
There was immediate debate over how (US) congregations should leave the denomination. Centrists and institutionalists have used their control of procedure and process to make departure difficult and expensive for Traditionalist congregations in an attempt to prevent them from leaving. Traditionalist leaders have leaked negotiation documents, derided bishops, and sought polity work-arounds to yield more favorable terms for departure. African episcopal leaders associated with the Traditionalist movement have said they will stay in the UMC until at least 2024. The WCA also announced that it would continue to advocate in the UMC until at least 2024. The Judicial Council has ruled that annual conferences cannot unilaterally leave the denomination. And when the Global Methodist Church launched on May 1st, the only group everyone was sure was joining was Methodists in Bulgaria.
In short, the announcements of further General Conference delay and formation of the Global Methodist Church have done no more to resolve the conflict in The United Methodist Church than did the 2019 General Conference or the Commission on a Way Forward or any of the other many prior attempts to move past denominational conflict.
With harsh attitudes by all sides towards each other, good faith negotiation is difficult to find. The Protocol was a hard won compromise, initiated by a unique figure in Bishop John Yambasu and led by one of the top negotiators in the world in Kenneth Feinberg. After COVID prevented it from being voted on in May 2020, neither side has really been interested in returning to the negotiating table, and there is no visionary African bishop or world-renowned mediator to help this time.
And with US United Methodists unable to solve their conflict, Africans and others around the world who have been enlisted on one side or another of the fight are left to wait to figure out their own fates, yet again relegated to the status of supporting characters in a narrative centered on the United States.
Therefore, the UMC is facing the prospect of a 2024 General Conference (however constituted with whatever delegates attending and whatever legislation before it) that will be just as focused on conflict around the slow-motion separation of the denomination as it would have been had it met in 2020 or 2021 or 2022.
This is all painful to watch and does little to serve the gospel of Christ. There are real consequences to this on-going conflict, too. The structures of the denomination have already been battered by the COVID-necessitated delays in General Conference. There will be especially big consequences if the next General Conference, when it finally does meet, is unable to pass any major legislation, which remains a real possibility. It will lead to the further hollowing out of the denomination and many churches that are part of it.
But conflict is a strong drug. It can be a very difficult addiction to kick. There are practices and strategies that leaders throughout the denomination could implement to move beyond conflict. But right now, it doesn't look likely that the UMC will be doing so anytime soon.
Monday, May 16, 2022
Plan Now: Ukraine Webinar
The Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference is hosting a webinar at 12pm EDT on Friday, May 27th entitled "A Faithful Response to the War in Ukraine: It’s Impact and What Makes What Peace?" The webinar will feature Rev. Oleg Starodubets, the UMC district superintendent for Ukraine; his wife, Rev. Julia Starodubets, also a UMC pastor in Ukraine, and Rev. Bill Lovelace, a UMC missionary in Europe, current assigned to work with migrants, formerly serving in Lithuania, Ukraine, and Russia. The webinar will be of interest to United Methodists who have been following events surrounding Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the church's response. Registration is free but does require the creation of an account.
Friday, May 13, 2022
Recommended Reading: Ukraine Moved To Nordic and Baltic Episcopal Area
The Northern Europe and Eurasia Central Conference met in special session on Saturday, April 30th to consider a request from the Ukraine-Moldova Provisional Annual Conference to be temporarily moved from the Eurasia Episcopal Area, overseen by Russia-based bishop Eduard Khegay, to the Nordic and Baltic Episcopal Area, overseen by Denmark-based bishop Christian Alsted.
The Ukraine-Moldova Provisional Annual Conference had requested such a move prior to the start of the current Russian invasion of Ukraine, but that development has made the request more pressing. Bishop Khegay and delegates from elsewhere in the Eurasia Episcopal Area had indicated their opposition to the move and boycotted the meeting.
As a press release issued after the meeting indicates, the participating delegates in the Northern Europe and Eurasia special Central Conference voted overwhelmingly to approve the change, 48-0-1. The delegates noted Khegay's objection to the change, but "choose to place decisive emphasis on the wishes of the annual conference in question."
The move has implications not only for United Methodist polity, but also for the provision of aid to Ukrainians during the war. Bishop Patrick Streiff of the Central and Southern Europe Central Conference, whose office has led United Methodist aid coordination efforts, presided during the vote. Bishop Alsted has already been working with relief efforts in the annual conferences previously under his jurisdiction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)