It’s time to debunk a persistent one-liner that is used to dismiss the work of one of the the central bodies in the United Methodist Church as being biased towards one region. The story behind the numbers tells us something about United Methodism that seeks to balance quality of leadership with proportional voices, and to lead despite the online rhetoric.
By the numbers…
The Connectional Table is the body of the United Methodist Church charged with visioning the future of United Methodism. Each region of the Church sends delegates proportional to their membership in their regions and they meet between General Conferences.
There’s only one official representative from the Western Jurisdiction on the CT. So by the math, the WJ, which has 2.7% of United Methodism, has one seat out of the 28 proportional representatives (jurisdictions and central conferences). That’s 3.5% which is a bit higher than actual, but you can’t get less than one. The inequality is across the board: the Southeast Jurisdiction has 8 reps on the CT (28% of the proportional representatives represents their 23% of United Methodism–but no one seems to complain about that).
But that’s not what bothers groups paid to criticize the United Methodist Church like the IRD. What bothers them is there’s actually 8 people who come from the Western Jurisdiction who serve on the Connectional Table, giving them (when including all 47 voting members) 17% of the membership.
You see, in addition to the 28 proportional reps, the full membership of the Connectional Table includes the Agency Board Presidents, Ethnic Caucus Presidents, and some at-large members:
- 3 of the Agency Presidents are from the West
- 2 of the 5 ethnic caucus representatives are from the West
- The Young Person’s representative is from the West.
- Finally, the ecumenical officer from OCUIR is a Western retired Bishop.
So you add in the church leadership along with the proportional reps, and you end up with 8 Western Jurisdiction folks on the Connectional Table.
The structure of the Connectional Table includes representative as well as the elected executive leadership of the church. That seven executive leaders are from the West is a consequent of the exemplary leadership of those individuals, not an intentional bias by the Connectional Table.
How did we get here?
First, the jurisdictions decide who to send to what general agency committee. So they select and send their representatives to the Connectional Table.
Second, the Council of Bishops assigns bishops to serve on General Agencies. They send however many Bishops to those agencies–the agencies do not get to pick. The Council picks the most appropriate people in the episcopacy to serve in these specific capacities for 4-8 years.
Then, the General Agencies elect their board president. While it often is one of the Bishops assigned, nothing in their bylaws say it has to be. The Boards discern the best person to lead them and they elect them after General Conference (last time in 2012).
Finally, the members from the Ethnic caucuses and the Young People choose their own representative internally, not dictated by the Connectional Table.
As you can see, the Bishops, the ethnic caucuses, and the Young People elected the best people from their constituencies to lead their areas of United Methodism. And when it all shook out, they independently chose seven leaders from the Western Jurisdiction to lead them faithfully.
Far from being an intentional bias of the Connectional Table, a happy result of our polity and practices is that the peer-elected leaders of the denomination are on the Connectional Table–and they just happen to be mostly from the West at the moment.
Criticized instead of Paralyzed
The effect of this makeup is that any time the Connectional Table does anything related to human sexuality, they are shouted down online by paid advocacy groups like the IRD.
If these people were paid for solutions instead of criticism, I would wonder what their solution is. After all of the Church leadership was firmed up and they had 8 people identifying with the Western Jurisdiction on the Connectional Table, what options did the CT have?
- Could they have said to these Agencies that their President was unacceptable and they needed to pick someone else?
- Could they have gone to the ethnic caucuses or young people and told them that they needed to pick someone else only because their region was unacceptable?
- Or worse: could they have thrown up their hands and said they couldn’t achieve anything in 2013-2016 because of an over representation? Talk about violating the Discipline!
None of the above. Instead, they chose to lead and achieve the charge given by General Conference: to vision the future of United Methodism. They had people from every part of United Methodism and the authority to move forward.
The bias of the Connectional Table isn’t to the Western Jurisdiction, as any two regions could outvote the WJ, and the SEJ has 13 members total by itself. The bias is to visioning for the UMC with elected and appointed leadership together. The bias is to lead with the team they had, not the team they hoped for. The bias is towards the best of the UMC in all its demographic diversity and proficiency.
So instead of throwing up their hands and giving up to the online critics, they moved forward, accepting that the best people had been sent to them, and they needed to fulfill the task set before them.
Asking the Wrong Question
As usual when it comes from IRD talking points, it turns out we are asking the wrong question.
- Wrong question: Why are there so many Western jurisdiction voices on the Connectional Table?
- Right question: Why are there so many quality, elected visionaries leading the UMC who come from the Western Jurisdiction?
That shouldn’t be a surprise to those of us in the West. As lifted up earlier, the West has qualities of discipleship that are leading the UMC, even though it lags far behind in quantity. Who better to lead the UMC in various ways and guide the whole Church to greater discipleship that transcends borders and boundaries?
So the next time the IRD and their parrots squawk out the copy-and-pasted complaint about over-representation on the CT, you can respond with this post. Here’s the shortlink: https://www.hackingchristianity.net/?p=7529
May we be in prayer for a Connectional Table that is filled with the leaders of the UMC, elected by their constituencies, proportional representation as best they can have it, and they are leading the UMC forward while the parrots squawk from behind.
Thoughts?
The above is too long to include this, but this is interesting when you do the actual breakdown.
When we get to the final numbers, here’s the list (according to Joe Whittemore of the SEJ):
Looks like the bias is not about the West, but about how the global church is terribly under-represented. But that’s the case in most bodies of the UMC at the moment–not justifying, just articulating.
Jeremy, you are right to say the problem is that the worldwide church is terribly under represented. The other side of that problem is that the Western Jurisdiction and Europe are significantly overrepresented.
It is true but misleading in the context of this discussion to say the non US conferences have 7 (15%) and 39% of our total US membership. By the way, the 39% figure is low. The latest numbers I found state that non US conferences total 43.1% (39.9% Africa, 2.8% Philippines, and 0.42% Europe).
Africa, with 5.1 million members, has only 3 of the 7 non US delegates. With 39.9% of our worldwide membership. It should have 19 of the 47 voting members. Europe, with less than one half of one percent of our membership, also has 3 voting members. The 2 most liberal parts of our church, Europe and the Western Jurisdiction, have 3% of our membership and 11 (23%) of the Connectional Table votes. With 3% of our membership, they should have only 1 vote.
The Connectional Table’s vote on the homosexuality proposal was 26-10 with one abstaining and apparently 10 not present. The vote would have been much different if there had been 16 more votes from orthodox Africa and 10 less from liberal Western US and Europe. As currently structured, it is hard to argue that the Connectional Table is not a captive of the progressive part of our church..
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
“As currently structured, it is hard to argue that the Connectional Table is not a captive of the progressive part of our church.”
And yet, that’s exactly what Jeremy has quite effectively done.
No, he’s only indicated (subjectively) that western leadership stars made it to the table, while apparently the lesser lights from other regions were passed over for lack of starry luminosity. The take-away is the creepy view that other regions lack our regnant western star-shine.
So, are you a member of a WJ church, GB? I’m not aware of any particular “star power” out here, at any level. Actually, being “stars” seems antithetical to the humility I typically see in our WJ leaders.
Western Jurisdiction leadership on boards and agencies is a long-term trend. Just sayin’
My main thought is a question: Why does the IRD, which has set out to destroy the UMC, get to have such a large voice in our decisions?
Marketing
Money
Willingness of authentic caucus groups to outsource their dirty work to the IRD.
One problem is that just repeating fact-free statements does not endow them with fact or truth. So, saying that the Western Jurisdiction is doing anything but driving faster off the cliff (Thelma and Louise did not survive the movie) is simply wishful thinking.
One of the many problems with the Connectional Table is that they represent narrow group interests rather than the broader interest of the denomination much less the Kingdom. Spending your time on a narrow group at the obvious expense of bringing people to Christ is an example of poor priorities not something to be applauded. If Western Jurisdiction bishops and other leaders have time to spend on the agencies and caucuses then that is an argument to reduce the number of bishops they have.
I have no connection to the IRD. I barely know who they are. My thoughts on them is that they are an outside group that is attempting to effect the UMC. Blah. I am fine with them ending any comment on the UMC.
That being said, who cares. Blaming the IRD or mentioning them, is about like mentioning unwanted endorsements for politicians. The fact, is that the United States as a whole is over represented. We keep talking about the UMC as it if is an American Church or an American denomination. It shouldn’t be viewed that way. The UMC is to be a Christian denomination. The fact is that changing to any view of human sexuality that denies Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason, is not a position we should be changing to.
Accepting the fact that God made and loves our non-heterosexual brothers and sisters is not changing to a view that “denies Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason.” Scripture on this issue has been grossly misinterpreted. Our experience and reason have changed many hearts and minds on this issue–those who aren’t stubbornly holding onto misguided traditions. So, regardless of the IRD’s involvement, changing the United Methodist position on human sexuality to fully welcome non-hereosexual Christians, rather than declaring them “incompatible” is a good thing, Ryan.
Things we surely agree upon. 1) God made and loves our non-heterosexual brothers and sisters, 2) UMC’s should welcome LGBTQ persons, and 3) LGBTQ persons are not ‘incompatible’.
Things we likely disagree upon. Scripture teaches that humanity was made good, but that sin entered into the human experience when two persons, the first humans named Adam and Eve, ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in a garden called Eden. Since, then we are born in sin, and we are sinful. (see Article VII of the Methodist Articles of Religion). Since, we are all then ‘inclined towards evil and that continually’ we are not to trust our human hearts (Jeremiah 17.9). Scripture and Tradition thusly teach that marriage is between one man and one woman. Over 2,000,000,000 Christians worldwide (just those alive today) hold to this traditional belief and interpretation of Scripture.
Reason tells us, through science, that the type of physical ‘love’ is contrary to the design of the body. I am here attempting to speak in a delicate manner, but honestly. Experience, says that acting in line with Scripture is reality, not following our hearts. So, I would differ with you.
So would every General Conference since before I was born.
So also would 99% of Christians throughout the world over the last 2000 years.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity