Recommended Reading: Wespath on Food, Agriculture, and Biodiversity

Ryan McQueeney, Sustainable Investment Stewardship Analyst for Wespath, recently wrote a Wespath blog post entitled, "Why Investors Should Care About Food, Agriculture and Biodiversity." In the post, McQueeney explains the economic significance of the food and agriculture sector and therefore the sector's importance in Wespath's efforts to pursue a missional vision of "an economy that promotes environmental health, long-term prosperity for all and social cohesion." McQueeney then explains what investment strategies and approaches Wespath is taking in the areas of food and agriculture as part of their "impact investing program, which seeks the dual outcomes of market rates of return and measurable positive impact." This post may be of interest to readers who have been following the occasional series on this blog about food and mission.

A global re-negotiation of separation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

European Annual Conferences Update

Here is a short run-down on recent developments at European annual conferences related to the future of the UMC in those contexts:

Czechia and Slovakia, May 19-22
At their annual conference meeting, the Czech and Slovak Annual Conference acknowledged that the two parts of the annual conference may be moving in different directions regarding the future of Methodism. The Czech district intends to stay UMC; the Slovak district intends to join the GMC, though they have some outstanding questions they want answered first, "on the employment of pastors, on the adaptation possibilities of the church order or also on the administration of assets in the GMC."

Estonia, June 17-19
The most significant news comes from the Estonia Annual Conference, which voted by 96% to leave The United Methodist Church. It is not immediately clear whether they intend to join the Global Methodist Church or become autonomous, nor is it clear what this decision means for the Lithuania and Latvia districts (neither of which have mentioned the decision on their Facebook pages). The process is envisioned to take a year and be completed at next year's annual conference.

Switzerland, France, and North Africa, June 15-19
The Switzerland/France/North Africa Annual Conference approved (with only four dissenting votes) a resolution to continue working on a plan entitled, "Kaleidoscope – living the mission." The Kaleidoscope proposal would allow the annual conference to remain together despite divergent views on sexuality by acknowledging those differences and allowing congregations and pastors to follow their own consciences. In this regard, it is similar to the plan approved by the German church executive committee. The Kaleidoscope plan has not been finalized; the vote merely approves further work on it.

Norway, June 24-26
The Norway Annual Conference passed a resolution stating that they would stay in the UMC but would develop a means for any congregations wishing to depart to do so by 2025. They also resolved not to make decisions against the Book of Discipline but to continue to work towards a more open and inclusive church and to hold in abeyance complaints against clergy performing same-sex weddings.

Recommended Reading: Missionaries and Justice

Andy Dye, Programme Team Leader with Global Relationships for the Methodist Church in Britain, wrote a recent blog post entitled, "My Justice Journey." In it, he reflects upon his experience as a white British mission partner (the British term for missionary) serving in the Caribbean. He acknowledges the historical ties between missionaries and European imperialism and other forms of injustice. He also acknowledges the ways in which missionaries historically worked for justice. Dye uses this tension to question his own experiences, those of other missionaries, and trends within world Christianity today. He concludes appropriately, "Seeking justice for the past, present and future raises so many questions yet the journey is essential." This reflection by someone who has served as a mission partner and continues to serve to connect the church in mission is a good model of what grappling with those questions looks like.

The Centrist/Progressive message to Traditionalists and Institutionalists

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

The announcement two weeks ago that the Centrist and Progressive negotiators behind the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation no longer supported that legislation was received as a major development in the on-going struggle for the future of The United Methodist Church. But to fully understand that announcement and its aims and implications for the church, one must look past a binary understanding of current UMC politics.

As I have argued before, new issues in the UMC have resulted in a variety of coalitions and interest groups. To view UMC controversies as driven solely by a liberal/conservative dyad is an oversimplification, though one Americans are apt to make, given the shape of current US politics.

In this particular instance, it is important to understand the difference between US Centrists/Progressives and US Institutionalists, their interests, and the interests of US Traditionalists. It is the dynamic between these three groups that is behind this announcement, though other groups outside of the United States are critically important for what will happen in its wake, as I will lay out in a future post.

To begin with, US Traditionalists would like to leave the denomination and to do so as quickly, easily, and cheaply as possible. However, without the Protocol or any other plan of separation, quick, easy, and cheap exit paths are not universally available. Despite some negotiations this March between Traditionalists and US bishops, no universal exit path was agreed upon. This created a patchwork of different annual conference procedures for disaffiliation, some cheaper, some more expensive.

This left some US Traditionalists feeling “stuck” in the UMC, as Tom Lambrecht put it in late April. Therefore, in early May, the WCA resolved to continue to advocate within the UMC for the Protocol and better exit terms generally for those Traditionalists stuck in the UMC.

Traditionalists have blamed Centrists/Progressives for keeping them stuck in the UMC. To some extent, that may be fair. There are some Centrists/Progressives who are stuck in conflict and unwilling to let Traditionalists go without making them pay for the pain they’ve caused in the eyes of these Centrists/Progressives.

But a better read of the story would make a distinction between Centrists/Progressives, as represented by prominent pastors and General Conference delegates, and Institutionalists, as represented by many US bishops. These two groups have different motivations regarding a Traditionalist exit, and that difference is key to understanding the announced withdrawal from the Protocol.

While there are some Centrists/Progressives that want to make Traditionalists pay as they leave the denomination, the major force that is acting to keep Traditionalists in is Institutionalists, mainly in the form of bishops and cabinets. Institutionalists, as their name suggest, are motivated to protect and preserve the institutions of the church, including their financial health. They tend to be comfortable with the status quo.

Thus, Institutionalists have a dual incentive to make Traditionalist departure difficult and expensive: It protects the financial interests of the annual conferences to require significant payments or to keep on-the-fence congregations in the denomination to continue to contribute apportionments. And it also preserves the status quo as much as possible to keep as many congregations as possible.

Centrists/Progressives, however, do not have preserving the status quo as their main goal. Instead, they would like to make changes to the rules and structures of the UMC (to create a “Next” UMC), and the continued presence of Traditionalists in the UMC is a hindrance to making those changes. Therefore, Centrists/Progressives have an incentive to let Traditionalists go, though they also want to make sure that departure does not significantly damage the denomination in the process so that there is a sufficiently strong remaining church to lead into their envisioned new day.

This is where the Protocol announcement comes in. Centrists/Progressives realized that, given the high costs they were being asked to pay in some annual conferences, sufficient Traditionalists were likely to stay in the UMC until 2024 that it would reduce the possibilities for using that General Conference to focus on creating a constructive path forward for the denomination and would instead ensure a fight over disaffiliation that might likely fail to resolve the issue to anyone’s satisfaction.

This is the scenario that Centrist/Progressive delegates Rebekah Miles and David Livingston contemplate in a UMNS commentary published the same day as the announcement about the end of Centrist/Progressive support for the Protocol. Miles and Livingston argue that to avoid such a debacle, it is important for parties to recognize how bad their “best alternative to negotiated agreement” is. In other words, parties are much more likely to negotiate when they consider what might happen if they don’t.

In this context, the announcement of the end of Centrist/Progressive support for the Protocol is not necessarily a new development. That lack of support has been voiced behind closed doors for some time. Instead, making such lack of support public sends a message. The Protocol announcement sends messages from Centrists/Progressives to both Traditionalists and to Institutionalists.

By publicly rescinding support from the Protocol, Centrists/Progressives are saying to Traditionalists that they should seriously consider the possibility that they won’t get a better exit deal by waiting until 2024 and advocating for passage of the Protocol. Therefore, Centrists/Progressives are calling on Traditionalists to either take the terms currently available or renegotiate apart from the Protocol.

At the same time, Centrists/Progressives are calling on Institutionalists to allow Traditionalists to leave on minimally expensive terms. The Protocol announcement stated, “We, therefore, implore bishops, district superintendents, and conference trustees [i.e., Institutionalists] to facilitate amicable departures after congregations pay their required pension liabilities.”

Miles and Livingston summarize the dual message thus: “We believe that Paragraph 2553 provides a reasonable path for local churches to disaffiliate. United Methodist annual conferences should uniformly adopt the minimum standards in 2553. Excess demands by leaders in The United Methodist Church delay departures and increase hostility. At the same time, churches and clergy that plan to exit the denomination should use the existing processes to do so before it expires on Dec. 31, 2023. Promises by the Wesleyan Covenant Association to remain active in The United Methodist Church at least through 2024 increase hostility, undermine negotiations, and hinder them from focusing on their mission.”

Both Traditionalists and Institutionalists (in the form of the bishops) initially publicly rebuffed this message from Centrists/Progressives. In a post for the WCA, Jay Therrell claimed the negotiators were acting in bad faith and then reiterated the usual Traditionalist litany of ways they have been victims of evil Centrists/Progressives (including bishops). This response was to be expected. Traditionalists have spent so much time advocating for and defending the Protocol that they could not be expected to accept its death quietly.

On the other hand, the bishops involved in the Protocol reiterated their public support for it. That announcement protects them from the criticisms of the WCA and allows them to preserve the status quo of the abeyance on church trials. At the same time, in its final paragraph, the announcement holds open the door to possible further negotiations among Traditionalists, Centrists/Progressives, and Institutionalists, without taking leadership in calling for such negotiations.

The real question is what US Traditionalists and US bishops will actually do in response to this message from the Centrists/Progressives beyond their initial written responses. Will bishops decide (individually or as a whole) to let Traditionalists go with minimal expenses? Will Traditionalists be willing to take the terms of BOD Paragraph 2553 and exit by the end of 2023? Will both parties be willing to open up further negotiations with Centrists/Progressives?

It is more likely, and easier, for US disaffiliation to be resolved through compromises between Institutionalists and Traditionalists at the US annual conference level. A negotiated compromise would require including not only the three US groups described in this piece but also various groups from outside the United States. That process would be more difficult, but potentially yield additional benefits in terms of resolving questions about the church outside the United States. I will explore that possibility in a future post.

Maria Van Der Maaten: With Bread

Today's post is by Dr. Maria Van Der Maaten. Dr. Van Der Maaten is a sociologist of food and agriculture and community development expert. She is also a United Methodist layperson, clergy spouse, mom of two, and currently serves as the coordinator for the Iowa chapter of MFSA. This post is part of an occasional series on food and mission.

Food has always been important to my family: my grandma was famous for her Sunday lunches, my parents’ dinner parties are always amazing, and now, as a parent, I’ve been learning to make my mother-in-law’s rice-dough tamales for birthdays, Christmas, and New Year’s celebrations. As humans, many of us tend to see food as not just nourishment for our bodies, but our souls, connecting our emotions to what we put into our bodies. When our household celebrated All Saints Day for the first time, I knew the one thing that was missing wasn’t Mexican sweetbread, which is something many other altars had, but instead my grandmother’s saucisjes (a type of Dutch-immigrant food) or some almond patties (a Dutch letter-like pastry).

As someone who grew up eating most meals as a family, the idea that sharing a meal was something special or unique to holidays always surprised me. Perhaps it was because sharing a meal is such a familiar act to me, but mealtime is my favorite piece of the Sister Parish experience: I love to try new foods, I love to eat, and I love to talk with people (win, win, win).

For more than twenty years I have been involved in the work of Sister Parish, Inc. as a delegate, staff member, board member, and supporter. Sister Parish is an international non-profit organization that partners communities of faith in the U.S. with communities of faith in El Salvador or Guatemala to establish long-term relationships based on solidarity, ecumenism, reconciliation, and consciousness-raising.

These relationships focus on fomenting mutual understanding and a commitment to peace and justice among partners in both countries. Although other more traditional mission projects (i.e., construction, education, outreach) may follow once a relationship is well-established, creating and maintaining connections is the sole purpose of Sister Parish; any other projects are meant to further the community-to-community relationship, not replace it.

Sister Parish delegates travel North and South, staying in one another’s homes as an essential component of enhancing awareness and understanding and nurturing these personal relationships. As a staff person and delegate, one of the greatest privileges of Sister Parish experience and model was to be invited to someone else’s table. It was at the dinner table where I would learn more about the lives and histories of delegates and host families and see the connections between their seemingly dissimilar lives be forged, clarified, and relationships solidified.

At the Sister Parish dinner table, I learned intimate details about how families in El Salvador survived the armed conflict and the simultaneous suffering they endured; how they experienced the stages of grief and loss as their family members migrated to the U.S., but also the gratitude and relief at these family members’ sacrifice for them; I also learned how to make some of the foods they have shared with me, the time, effort, prayers, and luck that goes into planting and harvesting the corn that ultimately makes the tortillas; and how sharing a meal is an act of radical love and hospitality.

This act of radical love and hospitality, inviting someone unknown (or hardly known) into your home, your kitchen, to try your cooking, is hard to replicate in other ways. Understanding this has also given me a new appreciation for the words “compañero” or “compañera,” which are usually translated as “companion” or “friend.” As I learned more Spanish, I also learned more about the Latin roots of the words: com = with, pan = bread.

I have a deep appreciation for the Spanish word “compañero,” because it is a friendship that goes beyond simply being one’s neighbor or fellow committee member or colleague; there is an intimate relationship that comes from having broken bread together. I don’t know that we have a word with the same depth of meaning in English. Or maybe, sadly, in our hurried U.S. culture, in which shared meals are reserved for holidays and special events, we simply don’t understand what true compañerismo could mean.

While many of us continue to isolate awaiting vaccines for young children and lower rates of transmission, we miss participating in these extended family gatherings and celebrations that include food. Sister Parish delegations were moved to a virtual platform for everyone’s safety as well. There is a sense of loss and a need to mourn the connections we previously shared and opportunities to learn, even if temporary.

However, this hiatus also serves as an important reminder of the joy of a simple, shared meal and deep conversation, especially with people who would have otherwise been strangers. Because those who are part of the Sister Parish family understand the transformative power of food. Once we break bread together, we aren’t strangers, but compañeros.

Recommended Reading: Christianity Today on Yambasu Agricultural Initiative

Christianity Today, one of the United States' premier Christian publications, has written an article about Global Ministries' Yambasu Agricultural Initiative (YAI). The article emphasizes how the YAI reflects a focus on Africa by Global Ministries and how the YAI is designed to increase self-sufficiency within the African church. The Christianity Today article comes after additional reporting on the Yambasu Agricultural Initiative by United Methodist News Service (see [1], [2], [3], and [4]) and Global Ministries itself (see [1], [2], and [3]). Not only is the Christianity Today article worth a read for United Methodists, it is likely to spread word of the YAI beyond The United Methodist Church.