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.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Friday, February 28, 2020
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
Monday, February 17, 2020
Igmedio Domingo: Philippine Central Conference Perspective on the Future of The United Methodist Church
Today’s post is by Rev. Igmedio Domingo, District Superintendent of the Southwest Metro Manila District in the Manila Episcopal Area and a signer of the Christmas Covenant. The post contains remarks made by Rev. Domingo at the Pre-General Conference Briefing. They are republished here with his permission.
I am honored and privileged to represent the Philippines Central Conference in this post. We seek to assert our rights within our Connection, and our desire to be included as an equal part of the global United Methodist Church - not just seen and treated as a subordinate member of our faith community.
OUR VISION FOR THE UMC IN PHILIPPINES
Our vision AS A CHURCH in the Philippines is strongly founded and deeply anchored in the visionary prayer of Jesus “THAT THEY MAY BE ALL ONE” (John 17). We are one in mission, ministries, and service to all people, especially the marginalized and excluded, who are in need of God’s compassionate love. Our vision of “unity in mission” is grounded in our unique Filipino cultural and political context wherein we continue to struggle against colonial influences. It is in our work to share the gospel of love that binds us. Our polity needs to reflect this vision.
We envision a Philippines Central Conference where human dignity, human rights, and the integrity of all people are upheld. We envision a United Methodist Church that respects and honors all, regardless of their race and ethnicity, political views, class, location, age, gender and gender identity, and sexual orientation. I believe that being Wesleyan means that we extend grace and love to all. We need to work for a church that promotes the highest standard of equality, justice, and fairness. There is too much arrogance, division, violence, and hate in our society and unfortunately, even in our church. Our division has brought so much agony, frustration, and pain in the body of Christ. Thus, our witness and mission to make disciples of Jesus for the transformation of the world have suffered.
WE ARE ONE IN OUR STRUGGLE FOR UNITY
Extrajudicial killings, the murder of innocent lives, political and economic oppression, and even the murder of church people fighting for justice are the historical elements that continue to inspire us in the Philippines to raise our voices in this season before General Conference, that WE ARE STRONGLY UNITED, WE ARE DEEPLY ENGAGED IN MISSION and STRONGLY COMMITTED IN SERVICE.
As a central conference, we have a distinct missional context. We have a diverse culture with many languages. We minister in a country of 1,641 islands. We have three episcopal areas: Baguio (Ilocano region), Manila (Tagalog region), and Davao (Visayan region). We have differences in culture, location, language, and theological leanings, but we are united in being United Methodists. Our voice as a central conference has to be heard and our context understood and respected. Central conference perspectives should not be an afterthought. In fact, we should be an equal partner at the table envisioning the future of the church, and not just an audience whose perspectives are being asked after others have made plans and decisions that affect our mission work. This demands equity and respect.
Whatever happens after GC2020, I can assure you that the Philippines Central Conference will remain part of The United Methodist Church.
OUR JOINT POSITION AS A PHILIPPINE CENTRAL CONFERENCE
As a central conference of United Methodists in the Philippines, we are intensely opposed to any move that dissolves the United Methodist Church. We value the witness of the early church as shown in the book of Acts of the Apostles, wherein division and schism were avoided and unity in mission was their highest aspiration.
The PHILIPPINE CENTRAL CONFERENCE College of Bishops passed a UNITY STATEMENT dated last August 31, 2019. This statement strongly embraced Unity in Mission and also promotes our desired structural legacy that we can be proud of, namely:
1. Locality or contextuality: that is why we have local churches, annual conferences and central conferences; being responsive to our missional context is obligatory.
2. Connectionality in relationships; that is why there is a General Conference and a Council of Bishops; having a global identity and organic structure are necessary.
3. Globality in inclusiveness; that is why the UMC reaches out in mutual relations with all governments and civil communities that promote Christian values and principles. Wesley said: “The world is my parish.”
It is clear to us in the Philippine Central Conference that a church empowered by God’s dynamic spirit and biblical wisdom requires that these structural legacies be maintained and promoted in any restructuring of the UMC. These principles are all opposed to the move to dissolve or splinter the UMC.
To support effective mission work across the connection, our Philippines Central Conference College of Bishops has recommended the following, and I quote:
1. “The UMC is to be restructured into regional conferences, within which will remain central and jurisdictional conferences, annual conferences and local churches.
2. “The UMC will remain as one global church in which regional, annual and local conferences are organic parts; but have the authority to decide their witness, mission and ministry, thus, preserving locality and connectionality.
3. “The Council of Bishops shall be retained as both the living organic symbol of the globality of the UMC; and the mechanism for general and local oversight over all the UMC.
“These elements for restructuring the UMC will both preserve the organic integrity and identity of the UMC and make it free and responsive to the new world that is aborning.”
Parallel to this Resolution, the Rev. Jonathan Ulanday, a GC delegate from the Davao area, submitted a Petition dated September 18, 2019, entitled “Oppose Dissolution and Preserve the Unity of The United Methodist Church”. We believe keeping the UMC united against dissolution and schism is affirmed by the Preamble and Articles 4, 5, and 6 of The UMC Constitution.
This petition highlights the following principles that promote the unity and inclusiveness of the church described in the Preamble and Articles 4, 5, and 6 of The UMC Constitution:
1. “Any form of structure and relationship that defines and treats one part of the church as a mere extension of another is colonial in nature and unjust.
2. “Contextualization is a missional, structural, and connectional endeavor that is an expression of our historical unity and core heritage, church order, and discipline.
3. “The diversity of our ministry and cultural contexts is real, but unity rooted in fulfilling the mission of the church can be maintained by identifying such differences and allowing for contextual authority to be exercised equitably by both central and jurisdictional conferences, or any regional structure formed by General Conference.”
This petition asks General Conference to:
1. “Suspend all actions furthering any dissolution, disaffiliation, and separation plans in favor of preserving the unity of the church in compliance with our Constitution and the biblically founded values of unity, inclusiveness, and redemptive grace and mission in our Preamble, also the wisdom and practice of contextual central conference authority (Par. 31.5, Par. 31.6, and Par. 543).
2. “Authorize the Connectional Table and the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters to jointly study and submit a report with proposals to the next General Conference session that preserves and strengthens the unity of the church in mission through a restructured polity that affirms and values broad contextual ministry policies and practices, including parity in contextual authority among existing central and jurisdictional conferences and/or any future regional bodies established by General Conference.”
THE CHRISTMAS COVENANT
As I close let me share a bit about the Christmas Covenant. Together with Rev. Dr. Betty Kazadi here and other central conference GC delegates and alternate delegates, I am a signatory to the Christmas Covenant. The Christmas Covenant is a vision coming from our central conferences that is guided by this frame, and I quote:
“As United Methodists from central conferences, we envision a Church that connects globally, engages in mission together, respects contextual ministry settings, celebrates the diversity of God’s creation in its many beautiful expressions, and values mutually empowering relationships in order to strengthen our core mission of evangelism, discipleship, and social witness for the transformation of the world. This is our covenant.”
The Christmas Covenant legislation will focus on establishing a regional conference structure for the future United Methodist Church. This legislation has been sent by the Philippines Annual Conference – Cavite to the General Conference. Possibly, it will be the only restructure proposal from central conferences. We are claiming our place at the table.
CONCLUSION
As we draw closer to General Conference this May, may we be one in prayer and strongly sustain our position to stand for UNITY IN MISSION, EVEN IF IT IS A RISK-TAKING MOVE. In any event, the Philippines Central Conference will seek to sustain ourselves and be part of The United Methodist Church.
I am honored and privileged to represent the Philippines Central Conference in this post. We seek to assert our rights within our Connection, and our desire to be included as an equal part of the global United Methodist Church - not just seen and treated as a subordinate member of our faith community.
OUR VISION FOR THE UMC IN PHILIPPINES
Our vision AS A CHURCH in the Philippines is strongly founded and deeply anchored in the visionary prayer of Jesus “THAT THEY MAY BE ALL ONE” (John 17). We are one in mission, ministries, and service to all people, especially the marginalized and excluded, who are in need of God’s compassionate love. Our vision of “unity in mission” is grounded in our unique Filipino cultural and political context wherein we continue to struggle against colonial influences. It is in our work to share the gospel of love that binds us. Our polity needs to reflect this vision.
We envision a Philippines Central Conference where human dignity, human rights, and the integrity of all people are upheld. We envision a United Methodist Church that respects and honors all, regardless of their race and ethnicity, political views, class, location, age, gender and gender identity, and sexual orientation. I believe that being Wesleyan means that we extend grace and love to all. We need to work for a church that promotes the highest standard of equality, justice, and fairness. There is too much arrogance, division, violence, and hate in our society and unfortunately, even in our church. Our division has brought so much agony, frustration, and pain in the body of Christ. Thus, our witness and mission to make disciples of Jesus for the transformation of the world have suffered.
WE ARE ONE IN OUR STRUGGLE FOR UNITY
Extrajudicial killings, the murder of innocent lives, political and economic oppression, and even the murder of church people fighting for justice are the historical elements that continue to inspire us in the Philippines to raise our voices in this season before General Conference, that WE ARE STRONGLY UNITED, WE ARE DEEPLY ENGAGED IN MISSION and STRONGLY COMMITTED IN SERVICE.
As a central conference, we have a distinct missional context. We have a diverse culture with many languages. We minister in a country of 1,641 islands. We have three episcopal areas: Baguio (Ilocano region), Manila (Tagalog region), and Davao (Visayan region). We have differences in culture, location, language, and theological leanings, but we are united in being United Methodists. Our voice as a central conference has to be heard and our context understood and respected. Central conference perspectives should not be an afterthought. In fact, we should be an equal partner at the table envisioning the future of the church, and not just an audience whose perspectives are being asked after others have made plans and decisions that affect our mission work. This demands equity and respect.
Whatever happens after GC2020, I can assure you that the Philippines Central Conference will remain part of The United Methodist Church.
OUR JOINT POSITION AS A PHILIPPINE CENTRAL CONFERENCE
As a central conference of United Methodists in the Philippines, we are intensely opposed to any move that dissolves the United Methodist Church. We value the witness of the early church as shown in the book of Acts of the Apostles, wherein division and schism were avoided and unity in mission was their highest aspiration.
The PHILIPPINE CENTRAL CONFERENCE College of Bishops passed a UNITY STATEMENT dated last August 31, 2019. This statement strongly embraced Unity in Mission and also promotes our desired structural legacy that we can be proud of, namely:
1. Locality or contextuality: that is why we have local churches, annual conferences and central conferences; being responsive to our missional context is obligatory.
2. Connectionality in relationships; that is why there is a General Conference and a Council of Bishops; having a global identity and organic structure are necessary.
3. Globality in inclusiveness; that is why the UMC reaches out in mutual relations with all governments and civil communities that promote Christian values and principles. Wesley said: “The world is my parish.”
It is clear to us in the Philippine Central Conference that a church empowered by God’s dynamic spirit and biblical wisdom requires that these structural legacies be maintained and promoted in any restructuring of the UMC. These principles are all opposed to the move to dissolve or splinter the UMC.
To support effective mission work across the connection, our Philippines Central Conference College of Bishops has recommended the following, and I quote:
1. “The UMC is to be restructured into regional conferences, within which will remain central and jurisdictional conferences, annual conferences and local churches.
2. “The UMC will remain as one global church in which regional, annual and local conferences are organic parts; but have the authority to decide their witness, mission and ministry, thus, preserving locality and connectionality.
3. “The Council of Bishops shall be retained as both the living organic symbol of the globality of the UMC; and the mechanism for general and local oversight over all the UMC.
“These elements for restructuring the UMC will both preserve the organic integrity and identity of the UMC and make it free and responsive to the new world that is aborning.”
Parallel to this Resolution, the Rev. Jonathan Ulanday, a GC delegate from the Davao area, submitted a Petition dated September 18, 2019, entitled “Oppose Dissolution and Preserve the Unity of The United Methodist Church”. We believe keeping the UMC united against dissolution and schism is affirmed by the Preamble and Articles 4, 5, and 6 of The UMC Constitution.
This petition highlights the following principles that promote the unity and inclusiveness of the church described in the Preamble and Articles 4, 5, and 6 of The UMC Constitution:
1. “Any form of structure and relationship that defines and treats one part of the church as a mere extension of another is colonial in nature and unjust.
2. “Contextualization is a missional, structural, and connectional endeavor that is an expression of our historical unity and core heritage, church order, and discipline.
3. “The diversity of our ministry and cultural contexts is real, but unity rooted in fulfilling the mission of the church can be maintained by identifying such differences and allowing for contextual authority to be exercised equitably by both central and jurisdictional conferences, or any regional structure formed by General Conference.”
This petition asks General Conference to:
1. “Suspend all actions furthering any dissolution, disaffiliation, and separation plans in favor of preserving the unity of the church in compliance with our Constitution and the biblically founded values of unity, inclusiveness, and redemptive grace and mission in our Preamble, also the wisdom and practice of contextual central conference authority (Par. 31.5, Par. 31.6, and Par. 543).
2. “Authorize the Connectional Table and the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters to jointly study and submit a report with proposals to the next General Conference session that preserves and strengthens the unity of the church in mission through a restructured polity that affirms and values broad contextual ministry policies and practices, including parity in contextual authority among existing central and jurisdictional conferences and/or any future regional bodies established by General Conference.”
THE CHRISTMAS COVENANT
As I close let me share a bit about the Christmas Covenant. Together with Rev. Dr. Betty Kazadi here and other central conference GC delegates and alternate delegates, I am a signatory to the Christmas Covenant. The Christmas Covenant is a vision coming from our central conferences that is guided by this frame, and I quote:
“As United Methodists from central conferences, we envision a Church that connects globally, engages in mission together, respects contextual ministry settings, celebrates the diversity of God’s creation in its many beautiful expressions, and values mutually empowering relationships in order to strengthen our core mission of evangelism, discipleship, and social witness for the transformation of the world. This is our covenant.”
The Christmas Covenant legislation will focus on establishing a regional conference structure for the future United Methodist Church. This legislation has been sent by the Philippines Annual Conference – Cavite to the General Conference. Possibly, it will be the only restructure proposal from central conferences. We are claiming our place at the table.
CONCLUSION
As we draw closer to General Conference this May, may we be one in prayer and strongly sustain our position to stand for UNITY IN MISSION, EVEN IF IT IS A RISK-TAKING MOVE. In any event, the Philippines Central Conference will seek to sustain ourselves and be part of The United Methodist Church.
Friday, February 14, 2020
"The Christmas Covenant and the Protocol complement each other"
The most significant piece of news in the UMC this week is undoubtedly the actions of the Philippines Annual Conference - Cavite, although many may have missed the significance. The PAC Cavite, meeting this week from the 12th through the 14th, passed two pieces of legislation on to the General Conference: the Protocol of Reconciliation & Grace Through Separation and the Christmas Covenant legislation. UMNS has this report about the conference's actions.
It is significant not only that PAC Cavite was the first annual conference to send the Protocol to General Conference, but that it sent the Protocol and the Christmas Covenant legislation together. The legislation for the Protocol has been critiqued in US social media for failing to include provisions for regionalization or the repeal of the Traditionalist Plan. That legislation focuses solely on the process of creating new denominations out of the UMC and asset division among them.
While the text for the Christmas Covenant legislation has not yet been released, the principles of the Christmas Covenant are clear, based on the Covenant document itself and comments made in a UMNS story about the document's release. That legislation is likely to include provisions for regionalization of the church in a way that will allow each region to make whatever adaptations necessary for the missional realities of that region, including those related to the qualifications for ordination and the services offered to all members of congregations.
Thus, the Christmas Covenant supplies the mechanisms for regionalization and adaptation of UMC policies by the US that the Protocol legislation is missing. As Bishop Rudy Juan said to UMNS, "I believe that the Christmas Covenant and the Protocol complement each other, and I am glad that both are endorsed by PAC Cavite."
But PAC Cavite has done something further by linking the Christmas Covenant and the Protocol. The Christmas Covenant includes a strong call for unity and an emphasis on the mission of the church. Thus, by linking the Christmas Covenant to the Protocol, the PAC Cavite has offered a way for those in the central conferences to vote for the Protocol while affirming the unity of the church. The Protocol alone might feel like voting for separation within the church, which the central conferences are opposed to. But voting for the Christmas Covenant with the Protocol is a way to affirm as much unity as possible in the church's present situation, while also taking actions to get the church out of some of the more intractable conflicts in which it finds itself.
For these reasons, along with the basic reason that the voices of United Methodists in the central conferences deserve to be heard, when the Christmas Covenant legislation is publicly released (probably in the near future), it deserves to be regarded as a serious and significant plan for the future of the UMC, on par with any other major plan.
It is significant not only that PAC Cavite was the first annual conference to send the Protocol to General Conference, but that it sent the Protocol and the Christmas Covenant legislation together. The legislation for the Protocol has been critiqued in US social media for failing to include provisions for regionalization or the repeal of the Traditionalist Plan. That legislation focuses solely on the process of creating new denominations out of the UMC and asset division among them.
While the text for the Christmas Covenant legislation has not yet been released, the principles of the Christmas Covenant are clear, based on the Covenant document itself and comments made in a UMNS story about the document's release. That legislation is likely to include provisions for regionalization of the church in a way that will allow each region to make whatever adaptations necessary for the missional realities of that region, including those related to the qualifications for ordination and the services offered to all members of congregations.
Thus, the Christmas Covenant supplies the mechanisms for regionalization and adaptation of UMC policies by the US that the Protocol legislation is missing. As Bishop Rudy Juan said to UMNS, "I believe that the Christmas Covenant and the Protocol complement each other, and I am glad that both are endorsed by PAC Cavite."
But PAC Cavite has done something further by linking the Christmas Covenant and the Protocol. The Christmas Covenant includes a strong call for unity and an emphasis on the mission of the church. Thus, by linking the Christmas Covenant to the Protocol, the PAC Cavite has offered a way for those in the central conferences to vote for the Protocol while affirming the unity of the church. The Protocol alone might feel like voting for separation within the church, which the central conferences are opposed to. But voting for the Christmas Covenant with the Protocol is a way to affirm as much unity as possible in the church's present situation, while also taking actions to get the church out of some of the more intractable conflicts in which it finds itself.
For these reasons, along with the basic reason that the voices of United Methodists in the central conferences deserve to be heard, when the Christmas Covenant legislation is publicly released (probably in the near future), it deserves to be regarded as a serious and significant plan for the future of the UMC, on par with any other major plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)