Across the United States, annual conferences are doing an odd thing: they are electing progressives and centrist United Methodists in droves to the 2020 General Conference. Annual Conferences that haven’t seen a progressive delegate to General Conference since FOREVER are sending half or more of their delegations from the progressive/centrist coalition.
What does it mean? And will it matter?
Case Study: Delegate Organizing Matters in the SCJ
I come from the South Central Jurisdiction (the Oklahoma Annual Conference) and there was always a stigma against organizing overtly: it was apparently uncouth if people had lists of who to vote for. People still shared lists, but they didn’t do it overtly. It was a gentleman’s honor system that we all knew people were breaking all the time.
There was some politicking. I remember seeing buttons at annual conference that had a fraction 30/20: meaning 20% of the delegation should be under 30 years old. So not calling for specific candidates but for qualities that people should prioritize. So in general, conservatives dominated the SCJ most of my time in Oklahoma, and in other SCJ conferences.
But delegates organized this year, using the same approaches as the conservatives: slates of delegates and rapid communication and adaption. A particular blogger wrote election tactics and sent it to progressives in the SCJ. It evened the playing field as both sides were using similar tactics and norms…and guess what happened?
According to David Livingston in Kansas, here’s what happened to the South Central Jurisdiction:
- 69% of delegates likely identify as either progressive or centrist and oppose the Traditional Plan.
- 28% likely identify as traditionalist and support the Traditional Plan.
- 3% are unknown/undecided.
Because the SCJ organized, progressives and centrists can now work together to elect bishops, pass resolutions, and change annual conference boundaries and number to effect incredible change at their jurisdictional conference. The days of Texas conservative men being elected (which dominated the past two quadrenniums) are in peril.
All because the playing field was evened out, both sides organized equally…and the people spoke!
The Magic Number at General Conference
General Conference requests delegates from all over the world. I cannot do much about delegate organizing and election in other countries than my own, so I’m going to focus on the math in the United States for this article.
There are many ways to do the math, so you’ll have to tolerate this approach if it doesn’t match yours. The math that I’ve ran by other progressives and seems reasonable to start is this: if we accept as a baseline for change the vote to implement the Traditional Plan, then here’s the number of votes that need to “switch” to be inclusive in 2020:
- 27 of the 54 votes to pass the Traditional Plan would need to switch to close the gap.
- 13 of the 26 delegates that were missing (due to visa issues) in 2019.
- 11 of the 22 delegates that the USA goes down due to demographic shifts in the USA ceding representation to Africa and the Philippines.
- +1 vote to be 50% + 1! Again: this is not the goal, but will give us some assurance that a coalition of ideas will be given equal consideration at the table.
So given that math, American progressives and centrists who want to repeal and replace the Traditional Plan, or to have a stronger presence at the negotiating table for Disaffiliation or Dissolution, would have to switch 52 American seats from “Traditionalist” to “Progressive/Centrist” this year.
Can it be done? Is it happening?
In an email update to subscribers to the Good News Magazine, Traditional Plan submitter Rev. Thomas Lambrecht admits:
So far in the election process, the number of conservative delegates has been reduced by about 20 percent compared to the previous delegation. It is not yet enough to switch the results of General Conference, but the progressive and moderate coalition is making progress toward that goal. In the end, the conservative delegation would need to lose about a third of its strength to give the progressives and moderates a realistic opportunity to reverse the outcome of St. Louis.
So what does that look like in real numbers? If you’re comparing the 2019 delegations to the 2020 delegations in terms of inclusion votes (designations taken from personal conversations, public statements, local organizing efforts, caucus group slates, etc), as of this writing, it looks like 32 delegate seats have flipped from Traditionalist to Progressive/Centrist. There’s still several annual conferences out (with over 100 delegates still to be elected) and some designations missing, but that’s my best guess given the three lists I’ve been merging. I’ll update this in a later article when some of those questions are firmed out (you know I show my work, but my work is squishy right now).
But in addition, prominent WCA Leadership Council members who were previously GC delegates (Rev. Christopher Ritter in Illinois Great Rivers, Rev. Jessica LaGrone in Texas) didn’t make the delegations, nor did other caucus group leaders (who may or may not have aspired to them anyway, given the roles in organizing at GC).
The credibility of the WCA is in peril when it loses voices at the United Methodist tables to which they are accustomed, due to votes by their peers and colleagues. It shows WCA rhetoric and actions may run well globally, but they don’t have as strong an appeal locally when people actually see how the WCA perspective governs.
Too little, too late?
Even eight years ago, these would be tremendous world-changing efforts and would allow the progressive/centrist folks to have great numbers to help the church repair its wound from the Traditional Plan.
But this is today. And the way demographic shifts work is that a small minority of USA delegates who are Traditionalist can pair with traditionalist regions to dominate all the laws and legislative agendas in The UMC. As I wrote earlier this year:
Continued distribution of votes in this way will mean that even if only 20% of United States delegates in 2020 oppose LGBTQ inclusion, that will be enough to combine with the conservative votes in the Central Conferences to defeat any efforts toward LGBTQ inclusion. In 2020, only 100 U.S. delegates would be needed to oppose any efforts towards LGBTQ inclusion…One can see how the culturally conservative regions have reached the tipping point as far as controlling a widening majority of votes at General Conference regarding LGBTQ inclusion.
So what the United Methodist polity structure means is that a very small minority of American delegates (100 out of 482) can keep the stranglehold of Traditionalist Correctional polity in The UMC when they combine with traditionalist regions outside The USA. Those traditionalist regions can rewrite their own polity to be contextual (¶ 101) while the USA regions cannot. It’s a gerrymandered system that will be very difficult to make more equitable, and that’s why I have concerns that this progressive wave is too late to effect lasting change.
But there’s a year of organizing, relationship building, backroom deals and open forums until GC2020. New voices from diverse regions will be hugely beneficial, as will the wave of LGBTQ+ delegates from progressive regions. The calculus has changed beyond the numbers, and the qualities of the new delegations have the chance to change The UMC into a more equitable and nimble denomination for the 21st century…or to just end it, I guess!
The choice is yours.
Your Turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
An amicable and equitable parting of the ways is still the best course of action for everyone. The alternative is a repeat of Stalingrad at #GC2020.
Well written and realistic. I have grave concerns with a progressive wave that has adopted the underhanded politic tactics of the other side.
As written above, these tactics have been used for years by Traditionalists intent on retaining their artificial majority. Now that both sides are using the same tactics (I have screenshots of WCA folks using lists and WhatsApp connections), we can better see who the UMC really is.
UMJeremy, the UMC is moving toward being a fractured denomination.
The early 20th Century Modernists deconstructed the Presbyterian Church and demolished it.
The far left did the same to the UCC later in the last Century.
The LGBTQ movement recently dispensed with the Episcopal Church.
It’s what progressive liberals have done to the Seven Sisters. They attack and separate the whole into parts. Full of self-righteousness, they disassemble.
In the meantime, non-denominational, independent congregations are appearing all across the country. No hierarchy, no bureaucracy (AKA Boards & Agencies), no tributes to the system (AKA apportionments), and no Bishops and District Superintendents.
Taken in total, the independent congregations are the second largest denomination in the US.
It’s happening, and its a wonderful thing, UMJeremy. Deal with it.
A comment from a cradle Methodist retired from 45 years in banking. I favor full inclusion of lgbtq+ folks into the life of the UMC. I have as many have read and followed what is happening to our Church. As a somewhat pragmatic person I think the only way the centrists/progressive side can prevail in 2020 is to send a trained delegation to the central conferences to explain that a majaroty of Americans and their $ are against the Traditional Plan. If the centrists/progressives believe the WCA did not use $ guarantees as leverage for central conference votes then they are not in the real world. This is harsh hard ball but I believe necessary to prevail in 2020. Thanks for listening.
Blessings,
Mort Hoagland
Danville, Kentucky
Wow, your numbers are way off. There have already been approximately 135 or so traditional delegates elected. The math is over. There is a decent chance for another 9 or 10. So that would mean 144 or 145. Starting with 482 US delegates (remember the reduction in US delegates from 504 to 482, 20 going to African delegates and 2 to the Philippines) and assuming a 2/3 to 1/3 initial count or say 321 to 161 progressives to traditionals with all the talk of this tidal wave/tsunami/etc. the net effect right now is about 25 switching or (50 counting votes) which may possibly end up being more like 16 switching (32 counting votes). That’s just the math, take it or leave it.
I didn’t claim that less than 100 Traditionalists have been elected, so I’m unsure where my numbers are “way-off”
What we can do with our delegates is redraw conferences at the JC – we could create parallel geographic ACs (one traditional and one progressive) that churches could then choose which to join. For example in NCJ the two Illinois conferences could be redrawn as two Illinois conferences both covering all of the state. Then one headquarter would be what is now NIAC and the other would take the IGRAC headquarters.
One underdeveloped and potentially surprising idea is the discovery of African delegates who are open to LGBTQIA+ inclusion. Centrists and progressives are initiating conversation with such African delegates who have cautiously indicated their opposition to the Traditional Plan. In the U.S., we’ve overlooked such folks, believing they didn’t exist. They do! They may be the surprise in Minneapolis!
I have been contacted by numerous LGBT activists from Africa on Facebook. I do believe with some aid and outreach that we could sway perhaps 30 to 50 African delegates to vote our way. There is already a bit of acceptance in the Philippines and of course in Western Europe. Maybe one thing we could is to give financial support to the LGBT rights movement in Africa.
As much as I would hope for lgbtq inclusion in Africa, I would fear that progressives in the US putting their money towards it would be seen as doing the exact same thing as conservatives have been doing already. (With allegations of buying votes)
The money wouldn’t only be buying votes, but it would be for improving the lives of LGBT persons in Africa, for in many countries, an LGBT person’s life is in danger. The money would go to LGBT rights groups to help change the hearts and minds of African governments. We wouldn’t be paying General Conference delegates money for their votes. Of course, we would try to sway them.
Conferences, especially young clergy, are organizing to send a clear message of outrage. GC 2019 and its harsh decisions don’t represent us. Especially strong in the SEJ and SCJ. Look at the results. People are upset!
And some of us who are not so young also want to send a clear message of outrage!!
while the laity who fill the pews and pay the bills are voting differently.
Revisionists have a choice whether to continue a fight until nothing is left or figure out a way to start healing. Working out an amicable separation with grace for all and malice for none is not going to be easy but it is a far better alternative to the status quo.
Hi Creed,
I keep hearing about the laity being more conservative – I don’t know that is ACTUALLY true. Certainly the AC lay voters seems to be leaning more conservative than the pastors.
I think of who has been sent to the annual conference recently from my church, they were nominated not by a vote of the people, but by the pastor and his nominations team. Most often they came forward on their own volition and asked to go. They tended to be retired members of the church, as they had the time to attend.
From what I’ve seen, the AC attendees tended to be even older than the average member of their own church. Almost no one under the age of 25 was involved, and those under 45 were pretty rare birds. That’s not to say that all ACs are the same, only to express what I’ve actually seen.
What would be interesting would be an actual census, one that directly asks a couple of pointed questions about how people feel and what they believe (there was a survey out of UM Comm from a year or two back that danced around the issues). I’d like it to be as full a census as we can get, as there can be a lot of information that could be invaluable as we try to resolve all of this.
I don’t claim that voting at GC2020 will make a difference for either group. I simply think your narrative of a significant move is overstated. And it is quite possible that some groups will vote in a different way in 2020. I would again point out to you the recent Pew poll done for UMC Communications that states that 40% of US UMC members are conservative, 20% moderate, and those who are moderate are much closer to being conservative than liberal.
The UMC’s issues are proving to be more nuanced than “conservative-moderate-liberal” as more conservatives realize what a radical departure WCA “theology” is from the real traditional Methodist theology. It’s not only about the LGBT issue, but even that is not clearly a “conservative-moderate-liberal” issue.
Everyone should part ways. Most progressives and traditionalists I know are open to this. They agree on many things, but this one issue and no one’s mind will be changed. The disappointing part of this is that the whole uproar is caused by the clergy on both sides. To them this is all about money and power.
Let’s get to the Lord’s work even if we disagree. Disband and quit trying to change minds….
It’s time to dissolve the UMC and birth two new expressions of Methodism. This should be the business of the 2020 GC.
Actually ”the people” didn’t speak. That is, the people in the pews. It’s no surprise that the preponderance of the clergy are liberal but not so the laity. For a ”lay-led” denomination there is a huge disconnect between the pew and the pulpit. It’s the direct impact of several decades of UMC seminaries spewing liberalism.
A split is inevitable. Let’s get on with it. Otherwise members in the pew will begin voting with their feet and their pocketbooks.
If all the lay people really hated Gay people as you claim, then there wouldn’t be new Reconciling Congregations practically every week. There are even now quite a few in the Southeast. For a Congregation to agree to fully welcome LGBT persons into the Congregation, the Lay people have to agree with it.
There is no issue with welcoming lgbtq individuals into the pews. Their sin is between them and God and we are to hate the sin but love the sinner. The divide is having gay clergy espousing their sinful lifestyle as normal from our pulpits and Influencing our children to accept this perversion as normal and God created. We can be inclusive in welcoming gay members into our pews without putting them in charge of the spiritual guidance of our souls. I for one came away from our annual conference ashamed for the first time to admit to being a United Methodist. In addition to voting to remove all restrictions on gay clergy, the voted to deny the humanity of the unborn child. This pandering to the far left radicals and pro abortionists was the last straw. My family will continue to support our locsl church for the time being until the dust settles because we dearly love each and every member of our congregation. But i will no longer admit to being a United Methodist. Hopefully my church will withdraw from a so called church that openly and unashamedly supports the murder of unborn children.
Asking Gay people to repent of their Sexual Orientation is like asking a person to repent of the color of their eyes. It is NOT welcoming to say “we love you” but we hate your Sexual Orientation. It is pure bigotry to claim that Gay Clergy would attempt to convert children to homosexuality. Sexual Orientation is not a choice and a person doesn’t become Gay because they were recruited to be Gay. I had Gay feelings from a young age. You claim to support the humanity of the unborn, while you deny the humanity of LGBT persons. Anyway, banning Abortion won’t stop abortion. Preventing unwanted pregnancies through such things as birth control will reduce Abortion, more than punishing women or Doctors for doing it. Anyway, homosexuality NEVER results in an unwanted pregnancy that could lead to Abortion. Homosexuality can be a great way of reducing Abortion rates. Did you ever think about that?
How horrible about the babies!! What church and conference are you affiliated with? Sorry, I know you don’t want to be, but since you are still attending, I’m curious. Does your church feel the same way about abortion, or just the Conference?
Blessings to you.
I don’t know about you, but my church generally agrees with the BoD regarding abortion – that we should work to eliminate abortions by removing the root causes of why people choose them. (pg 114-115 in the 2016 version, if you want to read up on that).
If all the lay people really hated Gay people as you claim,
I don’t see any claims of hatred in Ida’s message. Could you point out specifically where they are?
Creating two new expressions of Methodism is best solution. We must end the fighting.
Hopefully one of the things that will come from these shifts in traditionally conservative AC delegations will be the realization on the part of WCA, etc, that even if they have the votes internationally they still have to live in the USA. How many will be comfortable with reduced voices and votes in their jurisdictions? How about as the number of conferences in which the traditional plan is essentially unenforceable continues to grow?
Progressive movements have a well-established M.O.: That over which they cannot gain control, they intend to deconstruct, and if necessary, destroy.
The UMC is over. The sooner it splits, the better for the laity. They are watching and wondering who’s happened to their church. Many will go elsewhere. And be happy somewhere new.
It ain’t over until it’s over.
The sooner the UMC accepts that there are gay Christians who desire the same as heterosexual couples who cannot biologically have their own children the better. There is still a desire for love and commitment to one other person for many of us, despite our orientation to others like us.
Destruction is no more necessary now than it was at times when discussing interracial marriage, the ending of slavery, acceptance of people who have different colored skin, women as preachers.
It could be too late. Certainly is for me as I quit supporting and involvement in the UMC after the Judicial Review. But it’s not too late for many others.
Jack, you write: “The sooner the UMC accepts that there are gay Christians who desire the same as heterosexual couples who cannot biologically have their own children the better.”
Every congregation I pastored for 25 years in two Annual Conferences “accepted gay Christians who desire”…etc. That’s not the issue, Jack. And I suspect you know that.
“There is still a desire for love and commitment to one other person for many of us, despite our orientation to others like us.” And there has been for thousands of years. But that is not “marriage” nor has it been for those same thousands of years.
“It could be too late. Certainly is for me as I quit supporting and involvement in the UMC after the Judicial Review. But it’s not too late for many others.”
I held on through Pentecost, hoping for some kind of sign that my church was stepping up. I had commitments through then that I didn’t want to just drop.
But now I’m unchurched. Not sure if I’m going to find another denomination that will appeal. I’ve spent most of my adult life in the UMC, in one particular church, but the action of GC2019 and the inaction of my church have forced my hand.
And I’m not LGBTQ+. I can’t even imagine how folks who are directly impacted by this must be feeling.
My wife and I were members of several ELCA (Lutheran) parishes for 3 decades. In 2008 the ELCA voted on the approximate equivalent of the One Church Plan. Over the ensuing years, the traditionalist Lutherans were silenced and the progressive voice is the only one tolerated now. As Neuhaus observed: “When orthodoxy becomes optional, it soon becomes proscribed.”
We left the ELCA and joined a UMC church. If the UMC goes the way of the ELCA (and the Presbyterians and Episcopalians) we will be forced to leave, because we already know how this turns out. There are nowhere near enough new members to make up for the losses, and the church turns away from salvation and toward exclusively social/political matters.
It would be good for the United Methodist Church became like the ELCA. Perhaps you could then join the Southern Baptist Convention which conceives of Salvation in terms of right wing politics.
I invite you to study the ELCA as a predictor of how this will turn out. Like Spinal Tap, their appeal is “becoming much more selective”.
There are different methods for working the math problem. If we assume that the 27 votes short of approving the OCP are what needs to be overcome then we’re actually very close. At the moment I think that number is 19. And with 4 fewer delegates overall the magic number guess down by 2 to 25. Realistically the final number could be anywhere between 10 and 28. So then we’re looking at how many from outside the U.S. can’t make it and how many from outside the U.S. switch their vote. Personally I’m surprised the seeing is this big.
And let’s be clear – it is a seismic swing. Based on 2019 voting, non-traditionalists should have lost 13 votes. So we’re really talking about a shift of up to 40 votes in just one year. In secular politics anybody would be thrilled with a one year seeing if nearly 10%
Enough!!! This is reaching new levels of insanity! Step back and look at the big picture of what is going on!
Everybody is so caught up in winning the war of the church and beating each other up that we do not have time to share any message of God’s radical love to a hurting and broken world.
The reason for this insane, no-win war for the church is because…
We have lost all collective memory that the reason John Wesley stumbled into launching Methodism was because the only thing he set out to reform was his own life with God.
We have lost all collective memory of a complete Wesleyan understanding of what it means to be of the catholic spirit and who the person is that is truly of the catholic spirit.
We have lost all memory that Methodism was officially launched because of a theological dispute! John Wesley was pushed into breaking away from the Fetter Lane Society and setting up his own society at the Foundry was because he recognized the futility of being embroiled in a never-ending theological dispute for which there was no resolution.
in short, we are at war because we no longer have a collective understanding of who we are and what it means to be a Christian of the Methodist persuasion as John Wesley understood and developed it.
Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Man, have mercy on us! We are floundering because we are sinners who have truly lost our way and don’t even know it.
If we cannot agree on how to stay together, how likely is an amicable separation? Not likely, it seems to me. Has anyone articulated a vision of what that looks like?
The so called “Progressive Wave” during this annual conference season still does not reflect the grass roots of the UMC in the United States. The grass roots is still more Traditional and conservative than the delegation count reflects. If Progressives try to implement their agenda in churches throughout Texas and North Georgia, it will have devastating results. One Progressive pastor at a large membership church in Texas has already tried. People are voting with their feet and their pocketbooks. The budget in the church is being slashed mid-year because giving is drying up — the result of the Senior Pastor’s advocacy for LGBTQi causes.
The rhetoric in the comment section of anyone buying votes is ridiculous. It’s impossible. You May give me a $100 before I vote, but after that I’ll vote my conscience and you will have no way of verifying I voted as you wished.