United Methodists are justly proud of Bishop Joaquina Nhanala, the first African woman bishop in the UMC. In addition to breaking that gender barrier, Bishop Nhanala has been a skilled leader for the Mozambique Episcopal Area.
But she's not the only Methodist woman to take the reins of leadership in Africa. Looking beyond the UMC, there are at least two other Methodist denominations in Africa that have women as their top leaders: the Methodist Church of Southern Africa and the Methodist Church of Togo.
The Rev. Purity Malinga was elected last year as the 100th Presiding Bishop of the Methodist Church of Southern Africa, the first woman to hold that position. With nearly 2 million members, the MCSA is one of the largest Methodist denominations in Africa. It is also one of the oldest. At the same time as Bishop Malinga was elected, three other women were elected as regional bishops, meaning that 1/4 of the church's 12 districts are now led by women. Dr. Dion Forster has written this article about Bishop Malinga's election, the history behind it, and what it means for the MCSA.
The Methodist Church of Togo (Eglise Methodist du Togo) is a much smaller - about 40,000 members - and younger - independent since 1999 - church, but it too is currently led by a woman. In fact, it's led by two women. Rev. Grace Lawson is President, the highest-ranking clergy in the church, and as General Secretary, Rev. Angele is responsible for leading the work of the church. This partnership visit report by Dr Bunmi Olayisade, Africa Partnership Coordinator for the Methodist Church in Britain shares more about the ministry of these two women.
With episcopal elections coming up for United Methodists in Africa later this year, the question now stands: Will African United Methodists elect more women as episcopal leaders, as their fellow Methodists across the continent have?
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Monday, March 2, 2020
A Primer on UMC Assets: Board and Agency Income
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries. Dr. Scott is neither a lawyer nor an accountant, and thus the following should not be interpreted as legal advice.
Part of the discussions around the future of The United Methodist Church has been a possible division of denominational assets. When people talk about denominational assets, they are discussing those assets held by denomination-wide boards and agencies (hereafter agencies). This includes not only the thirteen official boards and agencies but also entities like the Connectional Table, the Office of Christian Unity and Interreligious Cooperation, and the Africa University endowment, which are also legal persons with assets and denomination-wide responsibilities.
Again, The United Methodist Church as a whole is not a legal entity capable of owning assets itself. Agencies, however, are legal persons, incorporated as 501(c)3 organizations under various US state laws, and thus they can hold assets in trust for the denomination.
This post and the following one will attempt to add some clarity to what agency assets are, where they came from, and the legal restrictions that may apply to them. First, this post will talk about where agency assets come from and the associated restrictions. A subsequent post will talk about the categories of assets and the restrictions on them.
One source of revenue for agencies is direct giving – donations made by individuals, foundations, and other entities to those agencies. Usually donations come in the form of financial gifts, but donors also may give gifts-in-kind, another way of saying that they may give tangible assets such as land, buildings, equipment, medicine, foodstuffs, etc. Sometimes these donations are made to the general expenses of an agency (or “area of greatest need”), but often they are given to support particular programs or for particular purposes, such as building up an endowment. Agencies must use donations as directed; they cannot use a donation designated for one purpose for another purpose.
Another source of revenue is investment income. Some of the donations given to agencies are invested rather than spent, and those investments generate income through interest or dividends. That investment income is treated as revenue. Income from an endowment can generally be used as the agency sees fit, whereas income from donor-designated investments must be used for the purpose designated for that investment.
A third source of revenue is business income generated by sales, fees for service, or other contract work. This source of revenue is really quite broad, because it applies to everything from the fees that GCFA charges other agencies for tech support to the income the Publishing House receives from selling books to the money that Wespath makes by managing the denomination’s investments. Business revenue is also generally available to be used as an agency sees fit (once the costs of operating that business are covered). Since the agency earns it, the agency can decide how to use it.
Agencies can also earn money through grants from foundations and governments. Grant money is almost always tied to programs, and the income received from grants must be spent on the operation of those programs. However, many grants allow a small percentage of the grant funds to be spent on overhead, so grant money can be used to offset the general costs of an agency such as office space, utilities, and senior leadership.
Most agencies, but not all, receive some money from general apportionments, the subscription fee that local churches in the US pay to receive the bundle of denominational services provided by the UMC. (For more on apportionments, see “A Primer on United Methodist Apportionments.”) While people often think of agencies as apportionment-funded, that is not true in all cases, and even for those agencies that do get apportionments, the magnitude of apportionment funding compared to other sources of funding varies. Some agencies rely almost entirely on apportionments, some have a mix of income streams, and some are not funded by apportionments at all.
Notably, the United Methodist Publishing House (UMPH), Wespath, and United Methodist Women are not and never have been supported by apportionment giving. UMPH and Wespath are self-funding through revenues generated, and United Methodist Women is self-funding primarily through the generous donations of faithful women.
The General Council on Finance and Administration and the General Commission on Archives and History are funded out of the General Administration Fund. The Interdenominational Cooperation Fund pays for the work of the Office of Christian Unity and Interreligious Cooperation (OCUIC). The World Service Fund supports the work of Global Ministries, Higher Education and Ministry, Church and Society, Discipleship Ministries, United Methodist Men, the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women, the General Commission on Religion and Race (GCORR), and the Connectional Table, along with other expenses. For those agencies that are apportionment-funded, the amount of apportionment funding is projected to drop steeply in upcoming years.
Some agencies also administer other apportionment funds. For instance, GBHEM administers the Methodist Educational Fund and Black Colleges Fund. Moreover, GCFA administers all apportionment funds before they are disbursed. Such funds, however, must be used for whatever purposes are attached to that fund, perhaps minus a small administrative fee. Thus, GBHEM cannot decide to use Black Colleges Fund money to support higher education in the Philippines; it must be used to support UMC-affiliated historically black colleges and universities in the US. In this way, agencies serve as “pass-throughs” for these other funds. They administer them, but the funds are in a separate pot from the rest of their revenue streams.
Whatever source the money (or gifts-in-kind) comes from, once an agency receives it, it becomes an asset. For financial assets, agencies may then spend them, save them, or convert them into tangible assets (by buying new desks or computers for its employees or purchasing books for the GCAH library, for instance).
What an agency does with the assets depends a lot on where that asset came from and why it was given, as noted above. Again, grant monies must be spent on the project described in the grants, donations to an endowment must be added to the endowment, and donations for a particular program must be used for that program. To do otherwise would be to break trust with the person giving the asset and expose the agency to lawsuits.
Moreover, the use of an agency’s income and assets is governed by the complex set of foundational documents and decision-makers that include, on one hand, the General Conference and Book of Discipline, but also include, on the other, the agency’s own articles of incorporation, by-laws, board of directors, and staff leadership. (For more, see “A Primer on Board and Agency Organization”). General Conference, thus, does not have completely free reign in telling an agency what do to with its assets.
Information about agency income and expenses can be readily found online from GCFA in the form of audited financial statements for apportionment-funded agencies. Additional financial information about the income, assets, and expenditures can be found in agency reports or auditing statements and sometimes in IRS 990 forms filed by the agencies.
Next week, I will take a different perspective on agency resources and look at asset groups instead of income streams.
Part of the discussions around the future of The United Methodist Church has been a possible division of denominational assets. When people talk about denominational assets, they are discussing those assets held by denomination-wide boards and agencies (hereafter agencies). This includes not only the thirteen official boards and agencies but also entities like the Connectional Table, the Office of Christian Unity and Interreligious Cooperation, and the Africa University endowment, which are also legal persons with assets and denomination-wide responsibilities.
Again, The United Methodist Church as a whole is not a legal entity capable of owning assets itself. Agencies, however, are legal persons, incorporated as 501(c)3 organizations under various US state laws, and thus they can hold assets in trust for the denomination.
This post and the following one will attempt to add some clarity to what agency assets are, where they came from, and the legal restrictions that may apply to them. First, this post will talk about where agency assets come from and the associated restrictions. A subsequent post will talk about the categories of assets and the restrictions on them.
One source of revenue for agencies is direct giving – donations made by individuals, foundations, and other entities to those agencies. Usually donations come in the form of financial gifts, but donors also may give gifts-in-kind, another way of saying that they may give tangible assets such as land, buildings, equipment, medicine, foodstuffs, etc. Sometimes these donations are made to the general expenses of an agency (or “area of greatest need”), but often they are given to support particular programs or for particular purposes, such as building up an endowment. Agencies must use donations as directed; they cannot use a donation designated for one purpose for another purpose.
Another source of revenue is investment income. Some of the donations given to agencies are invested rather than spent, and those investments generate income through interest or dividends. That investment income is treated as revenue. Income from an endowment can generally be used as the agency sees fit, whereas income from donor-designated investments must be used for the purpose designated for that investment.
A third source of revenue is business income generated by sales, fees for service, or other contract work. This source of revenue is really quite broad, because it applies to everything from the fees that GCFA charges other agencies for tech support to the income the Publishing House receives from selling books to the money that Wespath makes by managing the denomination’s investments. Business revenue is also generally available to be used as an agency sees fit (once the costs of operating that business are covered). Since the agency earns it, the agency can decide how to use it.
Agencies can also earn money through grants from foundations and governments. Grant money is almost always tied to programs, and the income received from grants must be spent on the operation of those programs. However, many grants allow a small percentage of the grant funds to be spent on overhead, so grant money can be used to offset the general costs of an agency such as office space, utilities, and senior leadership.
Most agencies, but not all, receive some money from general apportionments, the subscription fee that local churches in the US pay to receive the bundle of denominational services provided by the UMC. (For more on apportionments, see “A Primer on United Methodist Apportionments.”) While people often think of agencies as apportionment-funded, that is not true in all cases, and even for those agencies that do get apportionments, the magnitude of apportionment funding compared to other sources of funding varies. Some agencies rely almost entirely on apportionments, some have a mix of income streams, and some are not funded by apportionments at all.
Notably, the United Methodist Publishing House (UMPH), Wespath, and United Methodist Women are not and never have been supported by apportionment giving. UMPH and Wespath are self-funding through revenues generated, and United Methodist Women is self-funding primarily through the generous donations of faithful women.
The General Council on Finance and Administration and the General Commission on Archives and History are funded out of the General Administration Fund. The Interdenominational Cooperation Fund pays for the work of the Office of Christian Unity and Interreligious Cooperation (OCUIC). The World Service Fund supports the work of Global Ministries, Higher Education and Ministry, Church and Society, Discipleship Ministries, United Methodist Men, the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women, the General Commission on Religion and Race (GCORR), and the Connectional Table, along with other expenses. For those agencies that are apportionment-funded, the amount of apportionment funding is projected to drop steeply in upcoming years.
Some agencies also administer other apportionment funds. For instance, GBHEM administers the Methodist Educational Fund and Black Colleges Fund. Moreover, GCFA administers all apportionment funds before they are disbursed. Such funds, however, must be used for whatever purposes are attached to that fund, perhaps minus a small administrative fee. Thus, GBHEM cannot decide to use Black Colleges Fund money to support higher education in the Philippines; it must be used to support UMC-affiliated historically black colleges and universities in the US. In this way, agencies serve as “pass-throughs” for these other funds. They administer them, but the funds are in a separate pot from the rest of their revenue streams.
Whatever source the money (or gifts-in-kind) comes from, once an agency receives it, it becomes an asset. For financial assets, agencies may then spend them, save them, or convert them into tangible assets (by buying new desks or computers for its employees or purchasing books for the GCAH library, for instance).
What an agency does with the assets depends a lot on where that asset came from and why it was given, as noted above. Again, grant monies must be spent on the project described in the grants, donations to an endowment must be added to the endowment, and donations for a particular program must be used for that program. To do otherwise would be to break trust with the person giving the asset and expose the agency to lawsuits.
Moreover, the use of an agency’s income and assets is governed by the complex set of foundational documents and decision-makers that include, on one hand, the General Conference and Book of Discipline, but also include, on the other, the agency’s own articles of incorporation, by-laws, board of directors, and staff leadership. (For more, see “A Primer on Board and Agency Organization”). General Conference, thus, does not have completely free reign in telling an agency what do to with its assets.
Information about agency income and expenses can be readily found online from GCFA in the form of audited financial statements for apportionment-funded agencies. Additional financial information about the income, assets, and expenditures can be found in agency reports or auditing statements and sometimes in IRS 990 forms filed by the agencies.
Next week, I will take a different perspective on agency resources and look at asset groups instead of income streams.
Friday, February 28, 2020
Recommended Reading: African Theological e-Academy
UM News Service recently published a story about the launch of “Pamoja, a Methodist Network — East Africa e-Academy.” This story is significant for a couple of reasons:
First and foremost, it represents the spread of a new model of theological education that is based online following principles of distance learning. That model already exists in Europe in the Methodist e-Academy. Both Europe and East Africa have adopted this model out of missional necessity. But could this model of theological education end up being indicative of the future of theological education in the US as well? An analogy to the distribution of cell phones is perhaps apt. Cell phones were widely prevalent in the developing world before they were in the US because the US had so much infrastructure invested in landlines. The US also has a lot of infrastructure invested in traditional theological education, but Robert Hunt has argued in a series of pieces on his blog ([1], [2], and [3]) that new models of theological education will be necessary in the US as well.
Second, the range of international partners involved in this new endeavor is impressive. Four United Methodist theological colleges in East Africa, Robert Hunt and SMU, the Methodist e-Academy in Switzerland, the Endowment Fund for Theological Education in the Central Conferences, and Cliff College, England. This new network is a good example of successful multilateral, international partnership.
First and foremost, it represents the spread of a new model of theological education that is based online following principles of distance learning. That model already exists in Europe in the Methodist e-Academy. Both Europe and East Africa have adopted this model out of missional necessity. But could this model of theological education end up being indicative of the future of theological education in the US as well? An analogy to the distribution of cell phones is perhaps apt. Cell phones were widely prevalent in the developing world before they were in the US because the US had so much infrastructure invested in landlines. The US also has a lot of infrastructure invested in traditional theological education, but Robert Hunt has argued in a series of pieces on his blog ([1], [2], and [3]) that new models of theological education will be necessary in the US as well.
Second, the range of international partners involved in this new endeavor is impressive. Four United Methodist theological colleges in East Africa, Robert Hunt and SMU, the Methodist e-Academy in Switzerland, the Endowment Fund for Theological Education in the Central Conferences, and Cliff College, England. This new network is a good example of successful multilateral, international partnership.
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
A Field Report from Burundi, or, The Benefits of Connectionalism
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries.
The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not
reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
I am in Burundi this week, teaching mission and evangelism to pastors in the Burundi Annual Conference of the UMC. Working with these pastors has been rewarding, but it has also been interesting to learn more about the history of the church in Burundi. Combining what I already knew and the new things I have learned on this trip, it has been interesting to see how two things are simultaneously true about the UMC in Burundi: It has been remarkably self-supporting, and the global connection has meant a good deal to it.
The United Methodist Church in Burundi did not start out United Methodist. It was planted in the 1940s by missionaries from the Missionary Department of the National Association for the Promotion of Holiness (later World Gospel Mission), an independent, interdenominational, holiness faith mission. The World Gospel Mission was founded by Methodist Episcopal Church member Iva Vennard, though it also drew supporters and missionaries from other Methodist/Wesleyan traditions.
In 1980, that work has been formalized into the Evangelical Episcopal Church of Burundi with Alfred J. Ndoricimpa as its first bishop. Also in the late 70s and early 80s, Colonel Jean-Baptiste Bagaza gained control of the country's government. As part of the process of consolidating his power, he significantly clamped down on religious freedom. This included sending home all missionaries, including those of the World Gospel Mission.
At this point, the church could have just become a completely independent church with no connections to outside bodies. It was well-developed enough and had sufficient internal leadership and resources.
Yet Bishop Ndoricimpa saw the value in wider connection. Relying on the web of relationships he has with United Methodists through the World Gospel Mission, he began negotiations in 1982 for the church to join the UMC. That union was approved at the 1984 General Conference.
Certainly, some of the value to Burundi of being part of the UMC was access to outside resources through UMCOR and Global Ministries. Yet, for a church in a politically unstable country, much of the value of connectionalism was the value of a relational and spiritual support system that went beyond just one country. Indeed, Ndoricimpa would eventually end up in political exile from Burundi, but still cared for by the wider connection and assisted by the connection in spreading United Methodism throughout East Africa.
After Bishop Ndoricimpa's death in 2005, the church in Burundi split into two factions. Because of this division and because of conflicts between the general church and the new Bishop of East Africa, Daniel Wandabula of Uganda, the church in Burundi received little connectional support during this time. While there were many problems caused by the schism, the church was financially self-reliant.
This division not reconciled until 12 years later, culminating in a reunification at the February 2018 Annual Conference meeting. That reunification was largely the work of Rev. Jean Ntahoturi, the legal representation of the UMC in Burundi elected in 2017, and Zephirin Ndikumana, the conference lay leader. Both of these men are graduates of Africa University, trained through the support of the United Methodist connection. It was their training at Africa University and the web of relationships they had from AU that helped them facilitate this reconciliation.
The pastoral training program I'm here teaching in is part of cementing that reconciliation. I am here for the fifth of five sessions, and based on what I have observed, it has been a success. This training program could not have happened without excellent leadership, sacrificial financial commitment, and wise stewardship from the church in Burundi. But it has also been facilitated by personnel and financial support from the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, Global Ministries, Africa University, the Virginia Annual Conference, and Ginghamsburg Church in Ohio. It has been a connectional endeavor.
As I have talked to pastors this week, I have gotten a strong sense of optimism for the future of The United Methodist Church in Burundi. They expect the church to grow and for God to do great things through them. They base that optimism on two things: on reconciling their division and on their reconnection to the global United Methodist connectional system. The connection means more than just a source of money; it means an affirmation of what they have done and are doing themselves.
So there you have it: the United Methodist Church in Burundi is largely self-supporting and could survive on its own if it wanted to. But it recognizes the value of the United Methodist connection. It has repeatedly chosen to be part of that connection, not out of financial calculations, but because it recognizes the strength that comes from being part of a larger web of relationships.
I am in Burundi this week, teaching mission and evangelism to pastors in the Burundi Annual Conference of the UMC. Working with these pastors has been rewarding, but it has also been interesting to learn more about the history of the church in Burundi. Combining what I already knew and the new things I have learned on this trip, it has been interesting to see how two things are simultaneously true about the UMC in Burundi: It has been remarkably self-supporting, and the global connection has meant a good deal to it.
The United Methodist Church in Burundi did not start out United Methodist. It was planted in the 1940s by missionaries from the Missionary Department of the National Association for the Promotion of Holiness (later World Gospel Mission), an independent, interdenominational, holiness faith mission. The World Gospel Mission was founded by Methodist Episcopal Church member Iva Vennard, though it also drew supporters and missionaries from other Methodist/Wesleyan traditions.
In 1980, that work has been formalized into the Evangelical Episcopal Church of Burundi with Alfred J. Ndoricimpa as its first bishop. Also in the late 70s and early 80s, Colonel Jean-Baptiste Bagaza gained control of the country's government. As part of the process of consolidating his power, he significantly clamped down on religious freedom. This included sending home all missionaries, including those of the World Gospel Mission.
At this point, the church could have just become a completely independent church with no connections to outside bodies. It was well-developed enough and had sufficient internal leadership and resources.
Yet Bishop Ndoricimpa saw the value in wider connection. Relying on the web of relationships he has with United Methodists through the World Gospel Mission, he began negotiations in 1982 for the church to join the UMC. That union was approved at the 1984 General Conference.
Certainly, some of the value to Burundi of being part of the UMC was access to outside resources through UMCOR and Global Ministries. Yet, for a church in a politically unstable country, much of the value of connectionalism was the value of a relational and spiritual support system that went beyond just one country. Indeed, Ndoricimpa would eventually end up in political exile from Burundi, but still cared for by the wider connection and assisted by the connection in spreading United Methodism throughout East Africa.
After Bishop Ndoricimpa's death in 2005, the church in Burundi split into two factions. Because of this division and because of conflicts between the general church and the new Bishop of East Africa, Daniel Wandabula of Uganda, the church in Burundi received little connectional support during this time. While there were many problems caused by the schism, the church was financially self-reliant.
This division not reconciled until 12 years later, culminating in a reunification at the February 2018 Annual Conference meeting. That reunification was largely the work of Rev. Jean Ntahoturi, the legal representation of the UMC in Burundi elected in 2017, and Zephirin Ndikumana, the conference lay leader. Both of these men are graduates of Africa University, trained through the support of the United Methodist connection. It was their training at Africa University and the web of relationships they had from AU that helped them facilitate this reconciliation.
The pastoral training program I'm here teaching in is part of cementing that reconciliation. I am here for the fifth of five sessions, and based on what I have observed, it has been a success. This training program could not have happened without excellent leadership, sacrificial financial commitment, and wise stewardship from the church in Burundi. But it has also been facilitated by personnel and financial support from the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, Global Ministries, Africa University, the Virginia Annual Conference, and Ginghamsburg Church in Ohio. It has been a connectional endeavor.
As I have talked to pastors this week, I have gotten a strong sense of optimism for the future of The United Methodist Church in Burundi. They expect the church to grow and for God to do great things through them. They base that optimism on two things: on reconciling their division and on their reconnection to the global United Methodist connectional system. The connection means more than just a source of money; it means an affirmation of what they have done and are doing themselves.
So there you have it: the United Methodist Church in Burundi is largely self-supporting and could survive on its own if it wanted to. But it recognizes the value of the United Methodist connection. It has repeatedly chosen to be part of that connection, not out of financial calculations, but because it recognizes the strength that comes from being part of a larger web of relationships.
Monday, February 24, 2020
A Primer on UMC Assets: Departing Annual Conference and Remaining Local Churches
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries. Dr. Scott is neither a lawyer nor an accountant, and thus the following should not be interpreted as legal advice.
The vast majority of UMC assets (over 90%) are held by local churches. While local churches own this property, the trust clause stipulates that local church property (of all sorts – real estate, tangible personal property, and intangible property including financial assets) “shall be held in trust for The United Methodist Church and subject to the provisions of its Discipline.”
Yet annual conferences have important roles to play in managing these UMC assets. They exercise oversight of local assets held in trust for the denomination, as is also made clear in the BOD. ¶2503 states that local church property is “subject to the Discipline, usage, and ministerial appointments of said Church as from time to time authorized and declared by the General Conference and by the annual conference within whose bounds the said premises are situated.” (Emphasis added.) Elsewhere, annual conferences are given clear rights in the purchase and sale of any real property by local churches.
If, as explored last week, a US annual conference were to declare itself independent of the UMC, this would raise the question of what would happen to the assets of the local churches within that annual conference. Would they remain with the UMC or go with the departing annual conference?
While the Protocol (and perhaps other proposals) would address this question, since the BOD currently makes no provision for US annual conferences to leave the denomination, the answer to this question is complicated, more so than the relatively straightforward answer to the question of the property of local congregations exiting annual conferences that remain within the UMC.
The BOD connects local church property both to the denomination as a whole and to the annual conference in which it resides. This would raise complications for local church property within a departing annual conference. There would be conflicting obligations of trust for the local church to the departing annual conference and trust to the continuing denomination.
A local church who wanted to abide by the annual conference’s decision could say that it was acting in accordance with its obligation to use its property in trust for the annual conference. A local church that wanted to stay in the UMC in opposition to the annual conference’s decision could say that it was acting in accordance with its obligation to use its property in trust for the denomination. The latter might be the stronger case, but that doesn’t mean the former would have no case. Either way, lawsuits would likely ensue.
Here’s where the difference in legal statuses of the UMC as a whole and of the annual conference would come into play. The denomination as a whole is not a legal person able to own property or bring lawsuits to claim property; the annual conference (or at least its board of trustees) is.
Since the annual conference is generally the body tasked with enforcing the trust clause on local churches, a departing annual conference would have no incentive to enforce that clause on its churches on behalf of the denomination it was leaving. Thus, it’s safe to assume churches that wanted to leave with the annual conference would not face trust clause property barriers from that annual conference.
However, a local church or factions within a local church that wanted to stay with the denomination probably could sue to sever their trust clause obligations to the departing annual conference, arguing that they were instead being faithful to their trust clause obligation to the denomination.
One of the questions they would face in making their case would be how the situation could be remedied under a legal settlement. In other words, they would probably have to propose joining another annual conference to remain part of the UMC, thus entangling the other annual conference and probably the jurisdiction (who has authority over annual conference boundaries) in the lawsuit.
It is also possible that either loyalist churches or individuals within the departing annual conference or an adjacent loyalist annual conferences could sue to try to gain control of the property of local churches that willingly depart with an annual conference. They would have to prove standing, as discussed last week. That is, these loyalist players would have to demonstrate that they were harmed by the departing local churches and indicate who should receive the property if it was found that the property should stay with the UMC.
The BOD makes no provisions for the transfer of local church property to another church or an individual without consent of the annual conference, so it would probably be difficult (though not impossible) for other local churches to sue to gain control of the property of churches departing with their annual conference. That property would probably need to be given to a loyalist annual conference.
Adjacent annual conferences could also sue, since under current principles of United Methodist polity, they could, with the jurisdiction’s consent, claim the territory “vacated” by the departing annual conference. Such a case might be weaker for annual conferences trying to cross jurisdictional lines to claim territory, since the BOD clearly gives jurisdictions the right to set annual conferences boundaries within their own territory.
GCFA could also use its authority to “safeguard and protect the interests and rights of the denomination,” but it is unlikely that GCFA would have the resources to bring thousands of suits against all departing congregations.
A departing annual conference could also try the reverse strategy: to sue a local church within its borders that wanted to remain in the UMC, seeking that their property be transferred to the departing annual conference. It’s not clear that the annual conference could win such a suit. It’s likely that a lot of the argument would hinge on when and to what extent the BOD applied to a departing annual conference vs. when and to what extent whatever new rules it adopted for itself were in effect.
Of course, sometimes the threat of a lawsuit is an effective tactic to force others to negotiate. Thus, even if they weren’t confident that they could win, departing annual conferences could threaten to sue loyalist local churches, hoping to provoke negotiations about financially severing the tie between the church and the annual conference.
The bottom line is, again, that there are plenty of opportunities for lawsuits. Note that I am not recommending any of the lawsuits mentioned in this piece. I am merely trying to explore some of the legal issues around property that might arise in the UMC within the tumult of the next several years with the hope that by surfacing these issues, such lawsuits can be avoided.
The vast majority of UMC assets (over 90%) are held by local churches. While local churches own this property, the trust clause stipulates that local church property (of all sorts – real estate, tangible personal property, and intangible property including financial assets) “shall be held in trust for The United Methodist Church and subject to the provisions of its Discipline.”
Yet annual conferences have important roles to play in managing these UMC assets. They exercise oversight of local assets held in trust for the denomination, as is also made clear in the BOD. ¶2503 states that local church property is “subject to the Discipline, usage, and ministerial appointments of said Church as from time to time authorized and declared by the General Conference and by the annual conference within whose bounds the said premises are situated.” (Emphasis added.) Elsewhere, annual conferences are given clear rights in the purchase and sale of any real property by local churches.
If, as explored last week, a US annual conference were to declare itself independent of the UMC, this would raise the question of what would happen to the assets of the local churches within that annual conference. Would they remain with the UMC or go with the departing annual conference?
While the Protocol (and perhaps other proposals) would address this question, since the BOD currently makes no provision for US annual conferences to leave the denomination, the answer to this question is complicated, more so than the relatively straightforward answer to the question of the property of local congregations exiting annual conferences that remain within the UMC.
The BOD connects local church property both to the denomination as a whole and to the annual conference in which it resides. This would raise complications for local church property within a departing annual conference. There would be conflicting obligations of trust for the local church to the departing annual conference and trust to the continuing denomination.
A local church who wanted to abide by the annual conference’s decision could say that it was acting in accordance with its obligation to use its property in trust for the annual conference. A local church that wanted to stay in the UMC in opposition to the annual conference’s decision could say that it was acting in accordance with its obligation to use its property in trust for the denomination. The latter might be the stronger case, but that doesn’t mean the former would have no case. Either way, lawsuits would likely ensue.
Here’s where the difference in legal statuses of the UMC as a whole and of the annual conference would come into play. The denomination as a whole is not a legal person able to own property or bring lawsuits to claim property; the annual conference (or at least its board of trustees) is.
Since the annual conference is generally the body tasked with enforcing the trust clause on local churches, a departing annual conference would have no incentive to enforce that clause on its churches on behalf of the denomination it was leaving. Thus, it’s safe to assume churches that wanted to leave with the annual conference would not face trust clause property barriers from that annual conference.
However, a local church or factions within a local church that wanted to stay with the denomination probably could sue to sever their trust clause obligations to the departing annual conference, arguing that they were instead being faithful to their trust clause obligation to the denomination.
One of the questions they would face in making their case would be how the situation could be remedied under a legal settlement. In other words, they would probably have to propose joining another annual conference to remain part of the UMC, thus entangling the other annual conference and probably the jurisdiction (who has authority over annual conference boundaries) in the lawsuit.
It is also possible that either loyalist churches or individuals within the departing annual conference or an adjacent loyalist annual conferences could sue to try to gain control of the property of local churches that willingly depart with an annual conference. They would have to prove standing, as discussed last week. That is, these loyalist players would have to demonstrate that they were harmed by the departing local churches and indicate who should receive the property if it was found that the property should stay with the UMC.
The BOD makes no provisions for the transfer of local church property to another church or an individual without consent of the annual conference, so it would probably be difficult (though not impossible) for other local churches to sue to gain control of the property of churches departing with their annual conference. That property would probably need to be given to a loyalist annual conference.
Adjacent annual conferences could also sue, since under current principles of United Methodist polity, they could, with the jurisdiction’s consent, claim the territory “vacated” by the departing annual conference. Such a case might be weaker for annual conferences trying to cross jurisdictional lines to claim territory, since the BOD clearly gives jurisdictions the right to set annual conferences boundaries within their own territory.
GCFA could also use its authority to “safeguard and protect the interests and rights of the denomination,” but it is unlikely that GCFA would have the resources to bring thousands of suits against all departing congregations.
A departing annual conference could also try the reverse strategy: to sue a local church within its borders that wanted to remain in the UMC, seeking that their property be transferred to the departing annual conference. It’s not clear that the annual conference could win such a suit. It’s likely that a lot of the argument would hinge on when and to what extent the BOD applied to a departing annual conference vs. when and to what extent whatever new rules it adopted for itself were in effect.
Of course, sometimes the threat of a lawsuit is an effective tactic to force others to negotiate. Thus, even if they weren’t confident that they could win, departing annual conferences could threaten to sue loyalist local churches, hoping to provoke negotiations about financially severing the tie between the church and the annual conference.
The bottom line is, again, that there are plenty of opportunities for lawsuits. Note that I am not recommending any of the lawsuits mentioned in this piece. I am merely trying to explore some of the legal issues around property that might arise in the UMC within the tumult of the next several years with the hope that by surfacing these issues, such lawsuits can be avoided.
Friday, February 21, 2020
Recommended Viewing: The Central Conferences at the Pre-General Conference Briefing
Resource UMC has posted videos and PowerPoint slides from the presentations made at the Pre-General Conference Briefing held in Nashville on Jan. 23-24. Among the presentations are several that will be of particular interest to the readers of this blog.
A panel on "Central Conference Perspectives," including presentations by Rev. Ole Birch of Denmark, Rev. Igmedio Domingo of the Philippines, and Rev. Betty Kazadi Musau of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. UM & Global has published a transcript of Rev. Domingo's remarks. PowerPoint slides from Rev. Domingo's presentation and from Rev. Birch's presentation are also available. Both Rev. Domingo and Rev. Kazadi Musau are signers of the Christmas Covenant, and thus this presentation gives important background into what is another significant structural plan presented to General Conference.
The panel on "Young Panel's Voice in the Church" also included two speakers from the Central Conferences: Jani Djamba of Germany and Venus Mae Gatdula of the Philippines. This panel, which focuses on the proposed restructuring of the Division of Young People's Ministries and the role of young people in the church, is another opportunity for American United Methodists to listen to the voices of United Methodists from the Central Conference before General Conference.
While presented by US representatives, portions of the panel on "Our Global Connection" are highly relevant, too. George Howard's presentation (beginning at 11:00) describes the work of the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters and the role of bishops in Africa. Bishop Palmer (beginning at 14:00) describes the comprehensive plan for adding bishops to Africa. Bishop Palmer's slides are also available. Dee Stickley-Miner I(beginning at 20:45) describes work on the General Book of Discipline.
Finally, Rev. Dr. Kyle Tau discusses the ecclesiology statement "Sent in Love" in his presentation, starting at 1:30. His presentation will be of interest to those following UM & Global's series assessing "Sent in Love."
A panel on "Central Conference Perspectives," including presentations by Rev. Ole Birch of Denmark, Rev. Igmedio Domingo of the Philippines, and Rev. Betty Kazadi Musau of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. UM & Global has published a transcript of Rev. Domingo's remarks. PowerPoint slides from Rev. Domingo's presentation and from Rev. Birch's presentation are also available. Both Rev. Domingo and Rev. Kazadi Musau are signers of the Christmas Covenant, and thus this presentation gives important background into what is another significant structural plan presented to General Conference.
The panel on "Young Panel's Voice in the Church" also included two speakers from the Central Conferences: Jani Djamba of Germany and Venus Mae Gatdula of the Philippines. This panel, which focuses on the proposed restructuring of the Division of Young People's Ministries and the role of young people in the church, is another opportunity for American United Methodists to listen to the voices of United Methodists from the Central Conference before General Conference.
While presented by US representatives, portions of the panel on "Our Global Connection" are highly relevant, too. George Howard's presentation (beginning at 11:00) describes the work of the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters and the role of bishops in Africa. Bishop Palmer (beginning at 14:00) describes the comprehensive plan for adding bishops to Africa. Bishop Palmer's slides are also available. Dee Stickley-Miner I(beginning at 20:45) describes work on the General Book of Discipline.
Finally, Rev. Dr. Kyle Tau discusses the ecclesiology statement "Sent in Love" in his presentation, starting at 1:30. His presentation will be of interest to those following UM & Global's series assessing "Sent in Love."
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
Philip Wingeier-Rayo: Obituary of The United Methodist Church
Today's piece is by Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo. Dr. Wingeier-Rayo is Dean of Wesley Theological Seminary.
There are several petitions before the 2020 General Conference proposing various separations, divisions, and even dissolutions of The United Methodist Church. If this marks the end of the UMC, what will its legacy be? What would the obituary of the UMC look like? Let us imagine:
Surrounded by family and friends, The United Methodist Church took its last breath on May 5, 2020. United Methodist is survived by its parent, The Methodist Church of Great Britain, older sibling churches African Methodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal Zion, Free Methodist, The Wesleyan Church, and Church of the Nazarene; numerous daughter autonomous churches in Korea, Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore, Bolivia, Peru, Cuba, India, Puerto Rico, and other offspring.
Born in Dallas, Texas on April 24, 1968, to parents The Methodist Church and Evangelical United Brethren Church, The United Methodist Church (nicknamed the UMC) had a happy childhood growing up in an ecumenical community. United Methodist’s birth allowed for the fuller integration of African American churches into the family.
In its formative years, the UMC adopted the Social Principles derived from its parents, Methodist and EUB. Albert Outler played an influential role tutoring the UMC in “Our Theological Task” with the four guiding principles of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. One of the greatest values instilled in the young UMC was inclusiveness. The General Commission on Religion and Race and the Commission on the Status and Role of Women held the UMC accountable to these principles. The caucuses were formed to advocate for certain theological and racial-ethnic members of the body. The oldest was the Methodist Federation for Social Action, followed by Good News, Black Methodists for Church Renewal, MARCHA, and younger siblings such as Renewal and Affirmation.
As it grew older, there were multiple educational opportunities through 112 UM-affiliated colleges and universities—11 of them historically black institutions—and 13 seminaries. One of the UMC’s greatest achievements was launching Africa University in 1984. The UMC expanded its horizons as a global church with new mission churches in Cambodia, Honduras, Senegal, Russia, and other former Eastern Bloc countries such as Latvia and Estonia.
Although daughter churches in Latin America and the Caribbean were encouraged to become autonomous, churches in Africa and the Philippines remained part of the family. The UMC also welcomed 1 million members from the Ivory Coast.
The UMC grew up alongside the United States social movements such as Civil Rights, equal rights for women, and LGBTQ+ inclusion. After all, our tagline was “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors.” Like any family, we lived, we loved, we cried, and we fought.
From a tender age, the UMC saw gender equality modeled, as even before its birth women earned full clergy rights in 1956. The UMC never lived up to the idea of complete gender equality, but it did make progress. The UMC witnessed the election of its first woman bishop in Marjorie Matthews in 1980, and four years later its first African American woman bishop, Leontine Kelly. Now women comprise 28% of the Council of Bishops. The number of women clergy has continued to rise, and women students now outnumber men at UM seminaries.
In the US, the UMC launched the National Hispanic Plan in 1992. Later came the Korean, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Asian Ministry Plans, and Strengthening the Black Church. The UMC grew, responding to difficult social issues such as race, social inequality, and divorce. During the 1992 General Conference, the UMC responded to the Los Angeles race riots by launching “Shalom Zones” to strive for racial reconciliation and economic justice.
In areas of discipleship and evangelism, the Disciple Bible Study began in 1986 and was a big hit. The UMC Hymnal replaced the old Methodist Hymnal in 1989, and Mil Voces launched in 1996. The UMC loved quadrennial study commissions and two notable studies resulted in resources for the sacraments: By Water and the Spirit and This Holy Mystery. The UMC birthed Path1 to plant new faith communities, but it wasn’t too successful and was defunded. The UMC honestly wasn’t the best at evangelism and new church starts, but there were some major successes, such as the Church of the Resurrection, Ginghamsburg, The Gathering, and Grace Church in Florida.
The UMC saw the signs of the internal divisions that would eventually lead to its demise when Good News did not like the General Board of Global Ministries’ emphasis on social justice and in 1984 started the Mission Society for United Methodists in Atlanta to send more evangelistic missionaries.
Tensions grew in the UMC’s home when all of God’s children were not equally welcome. The UMC said that it had open hearts, open minds, and open doors, but yet the LGBTQ+ community did not feel welcome, and their lifestyle was called incompatible by the Book of Disciple. Every four years, the UMC fought about this issue. Eventually, the fight became unbearable and tore the UMC apart. The ultimate cause of death was self-inflicted wounds.
The UMC lived a good life. It was far from perfect, but it did some great ministry. It built wonderful relationships. Members of the body who would never have met, interfaced through our global connection. We pray that, while the UMC is no longer with us, those who mourn its passing may find comfort in the relationships that the UMC gave us. In lieu of flowers, donations can be sent to UMCOR.
RIP UMC 1968-2020
There are several petitions before the 2020 General Conference proposing various separations, divisions, and even dissolutions of The United Methodist Church. If this marks the end of the UMC, what will its legacy be? What would the obituary of the UMC look like? Let us imagine:
Surrounded by family and friends, The United Methodist Church took its last breath on May 5, 2020. United Methodist is survived by its parent, The Methodist Church of Great Britain, older sibling churches African Methodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal Zion, Free Methodist, The Wesleyan Church, and Church of the Nazarene; numerous daughter autonomous churches in Korea, Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore, Bolivia, Peru, Cuba, India, Puerto Rico, and other offspring.
Born in Dallas, Texas on April 24, 1968, to parents The Methodist Church and Evangelical United Brethren Church, The United Methodist Church (nicknamed the UMC) had a happy childhood growing up in an ecumenical community. United Methodist’s birth allowed for the fuller integration of African American churches into the family.
In its formative years, the UMC adopted the Social Principles derived from its parents, Methodist and EUB. Albert Outler played an influential role tutoring the UMC in “Our Theological Task” with the four guiding principles of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. One of the greatest values instilled in the young UMC was inclusiveness. The General Commission on Religion and Race and the Commission on the Status and Role of Women held the UMC accountable to these principles. The caucuses were formed to advocate for certain theological and racial-ethnic members of the body. The oldest was the Methodist Federation for Social Action, followed by Good News, Black Methodists for Church Renewal, MARCHA, and younger siblings such as Renewal and Affirmation.
As it grew older, there were multiple educational opportunities through 112 UM-affiliated colleges and universities—11 of them historically black institutions—and 13 seminaries. One of the UMC’s greatest achievements was launching Africa University in 1984. The UMC expanded its horizons as a global church with new mission churches in Cambodia, Honduras, Senegal, Russia, and other former Eastern Bloc countries such as Latvia and Estonia.
Although daughter churches in Latin America and the Caribbean were encouraged to become autonomous, churches in Africa and the Philippines remained part of the family. The UMC also welcomed 1 million members from the Ivory Coast.
The UMC grew up alongside the United States social movements such as Civil Rights, equal rights for women, and LGBTQ+ inclusion. After all, our tagline was “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors.” Like any family, we lived, we loved, we cried, and we fought.
From a tender age, the UMC saw gender equality modeled, as even before its birth women earned full clergy rights in 1956. The UMC never lived up to the idea of complete gender equality, but it did make progress. The UMC witnessed the election of its first woman bishop in Marjorie Matthews in 1980, and four years later its first African American woman bishop, Leontine Kelly. Now women comprise 28% of the Council of Bishops. The number of women clergy has continued to rise, and women students now outnumber men at UM seminaries.
In the US, the UMC launched the National Hispanic Plan in 1992. Later came the Korean, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Asian Ministry Plans, and Strengthening the Black Church. The UMC grew, responding to difficult social issues such as race, social inequality, and divorce. During the 1992 General Conference, the UMC responded to the Los Angeles race riots by launching “Shalom Zones” to strive for racial reconciliation and economic justice.
In areas of discipleship and evangelism, the Disciple Bible Study began in 1986 and was a big hit. The UMC Hymnal replaced the old Methodist Hymnal in 1989, and Mil Voces launched in 1996. The UMC loved quadrennial study commissions and two notable studies resulted in resources for the sacraments: By Water and the Spirit and This Holy Mystery. The UMC birthed Path1 to plant new faith communities, but it wasn’t too successful and was defunded. The UMC honestly wasn’t the best at evangelism and new church starts, but there were some major successes, such as the Church of the Resurrection, Ginghamsburg, The Gathering, and Grace Church in Florida.
The UMC saw the signs of the internal divisions that would eventually lead to its demise when Good News did not like the General Board of Global Ministries’ emphasis on social justice and in 1984 started the Mission Society for United Methodists in Atlanta to send more evangelistic missionaries.
Tensions grew in the UMC’s home when all of God’s children were not equally welcome. The UMC said that it had open hearts, open minds, and open doors, but yet the LGBTQ+ community did not feel welcome, and their lifestyle was called incompatible by the Book of Disciple. Every four years, the UMC fought about this issue. Eventually, the fight became unbearable and tore the UMC apart. The ultimate cause of death was self-inflicted wounds.
The UMC lived a good life. It was far from perfect, but it did some great ministry. It built wonderful relationships. Members of the body who would never have met, interfaced through our global connection. We pray that, while the UMC is no longer with us, those who mourn its passing may find comfort in the relationships that the UMC gave us. In lieu of flowers, donations can be sent to UMCOR.
RIP UMC 1968-2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)