Two proposals to legislate away progressives out of United Methodism have a common fear that United Methodism in the West has hit on something powerful.
Gerrymandering the West: Two Proposals
Recently, two proposals have called for a disbanding of the Western Jurisdiction, the most progressive region of the United Methodist Church.
First, the Texas Annual (regional) Conference recently sent legislation to General Conference 2016 calling for the disbandment of the Western Jurisdiction and a re-allocation of their eight annual conferences to two other jurisdictions. From the Pre-Conference journal, page 50:
Current jurisdictions vary widely in membership, with some unable to support themselves financially. Consolidating will save resources and create balance across the church in the U.S.
This proposal passed. It’s interesting that the proposal is fixated on the West costing the UMC too much money as this has been solidly debunked here: in short, the South needs to fix their own giving first.
Second, Rev. Dr. Christopher Ritter, a clergy in the Illinois Great Rivers conference, recently penned a proposal to “flatten” the UMC. Check out the fifth point:
#5: If a jurisdiction falls below five constituent episcopal areas, it must disband and its annual conferences must each join another jurisdiction. If the culture of a jurisdiction is not helpful to the ministry aims of the annual conferences, there is no reason for it to continue to exist. Surplus bishops in jurisdictions should retain their title but be assigned by the college of bishops to a local church of that jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction should fund their own bishops and all bishops, as superintendents of the general church, should meet the Book of Discipline requirements for the office.
Currently, four of the five jurisdictions have nine or more Bishops. Only the West has five bishops. So the Western Jurisdiction would be the first to be disbanded, according to Ritter’s proposal. In fact, it demotes their bishops to become local pastors in function. Wrapped in seemingly reasonable language, Ritter calls for a disbandment of the Western Jurisdiction and a removal of their bishops from their elected tasks.
Make no mistake, both of Ritter’s “Unity” Jurisdictional Plans, just as jurisdictions marginalized African-Americans in the 20th century, are about gerrymandering progressive voices out of influence in the 21st.
In summary, the current political climate is that the Western Jurisdiction is the worst of United Methodism and needs to be destroyed. By gerrymandering the UMC so that the progressive majority in the West becomes the minority in the other jurisdictions, then they are marginalized and silenced.
Needing a scapegoat…
These are odd approaches. The Western Jurisdiction has 340,000 United Methodists whereas the SouthEastern Jurisdiction has 2.8 million. The West makes up less than 5% of Methodism…that’s it. Why are these larger jurisdictions so concerned with a smaller (some would say, insignificant) portion of United Methodism?
Well, there’s a lot of bad news out there for the church. Perhaps the UMC has found a scapegoat in the Western Jurisdiction and believe that their ills will be over when the scapegoat is destroyed. According to Girardian theory, when a groups’ dominant power structure is challenged…
…There is a point where there is so much group violence that unanimity (and thus peace and the avoidance of the collapse of the group) can only be restored when all become fixated on someone who can be held responsible for the collapse of unity and order within the group and then expelled, permitting the establishment of a new social unity over against the expelled one…they believe in the culpability of the rejected one (or group), and continue to bolster up this belief by forging prohibitions, myths and rituals.
To me, this is a textbook example of Girardian scapegoat theory: a majority culture taking out their organizational angst on a minority group in United Methodism? For arch-conservatives who see their inherited dominance slip through their fingers, it’s quite easy to point those fingers at others.
…or fleecing the sheep?
But maybe I’m being overly negative. I’m sorry about that.
Maybe it’s really just as simple as that the West has substantial achievements compared to the rest, and instead of celebrating that, anti-westerners want to claim these successes as their own.
- The Western Jurisdiction has a better ratio of “Professions of Faith to Members” than any other jurisdiction. It only has 45 members per new profession of faith in the West…in the SouthEastern Jurisdiction, it’s 70 members. On average, each western Methodist church is more efficient at professions of faith.
- The Western Jurisdiction has the highest percentage of vitality for its churches. While other jurisdictions have more congregations, bigger and more financially strong…according to the denominations’ criteria, the West has the highest percentage of vital churches.
- The Western Jurisdiction’s per capita church involvement is the highest in United Methodism. Rev. Anthony Tang of Desert Southwest blogged during General Conference that if you divide the average worship attendance by actual membership, on average each western Methodist attends church more often than any other jurisdiction.
- Finally, The Western Jurisdiction’s per capita giving is the highest (by several percentage points) in United Methodism. See page 552 of the Advance DCA 2012. While the West has fewer members and total giving, on average each western Methodist gives more to the General Church than any other jurisdiction.
There’s a difference between quantitative and qualitative church growth. I know the North and South are bigger quantitatively, but the numbers above show the West might be stronger qualitatively. It could be a contention that the West has much to teach the Rest of Methodism about discipleship in the None Zone before this creeping secularism gets to their doorstep.
Maybe it’s not about gerrymandering away progressives or scapegoating them for our ills, but simply that the West is picking up on something–the future, maybe, of discipleship–and rather than let the West continue their success, anti-Westerners want to control it and claim it as their own.
A rising tide lifts all boats
Competitive, zero-sum actions like these are polar opposite to the prevailing missional spirit in United Methodism. As I’ve said before: Every challenge we overcome in the West is one less that the Bible Belt will have to deal with when the collapse of Christendom comes to their doorstep.
A rising tide lifts all boats. The successes that the West has are all of United Methodism’s already. But the truth is that we likely wouldn’t have achieved such things if we were controlled by distant majority cultures more than we already are. We are living out progressive Methodism in its formative rough stages, sowing the seeds for an explosion in the future.
These vindictive efforts within United Methodism need to figure out their problems without pointing to a scapegoat, and celebrate our successes across the connection. We may not see eye-to-eye on some topics, but we are in one mission overall. Indeed, it’s counter-productive to silence the successes of the rough edges of an organization. Author Brian McLaren says the best institutions relate to movements within it in this way:
Effective institutions consolidate the gains of a movement.
Brilliant ones keep the movement alive.
Whether you like it or not, the West is one of many movements in the UMC. Let’s keep it alive a bit longer, let it play out, and see what the future with hope holds.
Thoughts?
The thing about sending bishops to serve local churches seems to be an attempt to belittle and humiliate our WJ bishops. Seeing as we have 4 ppl of color and a white woman in leadership I wonder how much that suggestion is motivated by a desire to put our leadership “in it’s place.”
Interesting thought, but I’m not quite on board with the idea of serving the local church is belittling or humiliating. The assumption is that the office of bishop is a loftier form of service to Christ and local church ministry is ‘beneath them’ moves in the opposite direction from the example of servant ministry set by Christ. In other modes of Methodism (South Africa for instance), bishops serve in a local church as well as perform the episcopal function.
Good point, Brett. Thanks for the reminder the role of the Bishop is set aside, not set above.
I wholeheartedly agree but there is a real question of agency here. There is a difference between an episcopal leader serving in a local church and being tasked with the intent of diminishing. Which is at play here is the real question.
Your comment is racist, pure and simple. Oh, it is an approved form of racism, but when you define human worth in terms of race, you are just as racist as any Klansman. Then there is the gender issue. Why brag about which gender is more worthy than the other? Oh, gee, were going into an hysterical fit we’re so good! We have “people of color” and a woman in charge of something! People of color — black is the total absorption of color and white is the total absence of color (See Sears and Zemansky, College Physics). When did I become “de-peigmented”. We all have color — except in the rarefied atmosphere of those who find the use of race and gender for political reasons useful.
Thank you for naming critical issues and debunking propaganda that declares the Western Jurisdiction as being of limited or no value to The United Methodist Church.
Two things I’d like to expand on here.
1) Girardian Theory: There’s another piece of Girard’s theory you don’t mention that I think is important here, and that your statistics demonstrate. The scapegoat is innocent. It’s not that the scapegoat is the cause of troubles. It’s that the move to destroy the scapegoat creates enough unity and then catharsis in the actual ritual of destruction that the conflicts between the now united groups are temporarily (and that’s a key point) relieved.
Here’s the problem with the scapegoating mechanism. There will have to be another scapegoat. You start down this path and it’s an addictive cycle. The underlying conflicts driven by mimetic rivalry are not actually resolved, just relieved. The conflicts will resurface, often more virulently and quickly than before the previous crisis led to the act of scapegoating.
Just ask the Southern Baptists. First it was the “liberals,” specifically those who advocated the ordination of women and would not insist on an inerrantist reading of the Bible and that it was essential to purge anyone who disagreed on that point. Then it was the charismatics. Then it was the Masons. Then, for a while, it was Disney. Then it was congregations that offered financial support to networks (such as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship) other than the SBC. And so on. And they wonder why they’re declining?
2) The failure of Methodists to reach the West. There were two strong waves of Methodist movement westward in the US in the 19th century. The first was before the US Civil War and the North/South Split. The second was the “church a day” movement in the late 19th century funded beginning in 1878 and lasting roughly 30 years. In both of these movements, the expansions started with efforts east and just to the west of the Mississippi, essentially doubling the base of Methodism in large parts of what would become the North Central, South Central and Southeast jurisdictions. (Large swaths of the Northeast were too much in the throes of the “burnt over district” phenomenon for this to have much impact there). And in both movements, the energy and funding were pretty well spent by the time Methodists reached the Rockies.
The result is we have never had anything like a strong, well-supported effort of church planting through much of the territory of what would become the Western Jurisdiction as we have had in every other part of the US.
This fact alone can more than account for the sparse number of churches there compared with every other jurisdiction.
It’s more than disingenuous to “blame” the Western Jurisdiction for this fact, when the reality is those of us east of the Mississippi and in Texas had the people, the money, and the commitment to double their own base but somehow not to reach the western part of our country with the same degree of commitment and investment in the last century– and not once, but twice!
Meanwhile, a great number of America’s largest cities are in the West, and the trends supporting their growth aren’t looking to end anytime soon. Yet there’s talk of severing ourselves from this vast mission field? And there’s so little talk of instead redirecting significant resources across the connection to evangelism and new church starts there?
What does this say about those who are seeking by one means or another to cast aspersions on or even dissolve the Western Jursidiction rather than answer what to me is nothing less than a Macedonian call?
((applauds))
Drop the mic, Taylor!
The West was also not the recipient of very many EA/UB/EUB or even MP churches. You won’t find a UMC on every corner like you can in Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania.
Except that in the 1960’s, the California-Pacific and North Georgia conferences were the same size. It wasn’t the actions of those in the 1850’s or 1880’s that set the tone. It was the decisions and actions of people in the 1960’s and 1970’s (and beyond until today) that led the WJ to be the fastest declining jurisdiction.
I’m not saying I favor the legislation, but perhaps the reason is that the 2012 WJ Conference passed a resolution to ignore the parts of the Discipline that they don’t agree with. It makes the rest of the country believe that the WJ doesn’t really want to be United Methodist, but something else.
The fact that the WJ passed a resolution to act as if certain statements in the Discipline may be ignored is a statement that we find the Discipline in conflict with what we believe God is calling us to do, not that we no longer wish to be United Methodist. This is a long-practiced position in our tradition regarding secular law. Why can’t it translate to the statements made by our denominational body? Further, I know that in the particular local churches I have served, more people have come than gone because we HAVE chosen to follow the Biblical Obedience model put forth by Bishop Talbert and others.
Sorry, but anecdotal evidence (cherry picking) only advances Tom’s point. What we see in the West is frenetic activity to fortify a dying structure. While that may produce some local results, the secular trend is down. This must be reckoned with, not simply masked with nomenclature and aspiration.
The California-Pacific Conference of the 1960’s split off the Desert Southwest conference and perhaps also the California-Nevada conference. A comparison with North Georgia should include all churches in the 1960’s CPC.
North Georgia is larger than the ENTIRE Western Jurisdiction. Blaming everyone else instead of insisting that leadership take responsibility isn’t going to help anything. How many churches has the Western Jurisdiction planted in the last ten years? The membership continues to melt away. The attempts at three card monte simply illustrate the complete lack of accountability by Western Jurisdiction leadership.
Perhaps a better question, for all jurisdictions would be: how many local churches have transitioned Whether from being discontinued or not) from being a white, English-speaking congregation to becoming a worshipping congregation in a language other than English? That is far more the reality in Annual Conferences that abut the Pacific Ocean.
Boom goes the dynamite.
As a member of the Texas AC, I’m very distressed that legislation was put forward, and am sorry that this was put forth to marginalized needed voices in the UMC. I’m also very distressed at much of the voting that went down this year. I am a young clergy and commissioned elder, so I’m not going to go into great detail–I’ll leave that to people with better footing in than I have. That said, my thoughts and prayers are with you.
Grant, I’m sorry you were roped in with the rest. I’m from Oklahoma and I know what it feels like to be the minority perspective. Blessings to you and your ministry.
I’m nearly certain that the leadership of the Northern Illinois Conference would like to remind you that Chris Ritter is a member of the Illinois Great Rivers Conference.:)
Whoops. Fixed. Thanks Jon.
As a new transfer to the WJ from the Midwest, I would just like to state that I am going there because my call to parish ministry has never felt stronger in any other setting. I love the PEOPLE and COMMUNITIES I will be serving. It is where I call home. The move has nothing to do with ideology (though that is often what colleagues mention).
That being said, at a meeting on evangelism in the SEJ, I told a(n) (unspecified) Bishop I would be moving to California. He looked at me and said, “Why would you do that? There aren’t any Christians out there!” … At a conference on evangelism…
“At a conference on Evangelism” = oh my…
Amazing story, Blair, glad to have you and blessings on your ministry.
Welcome to the West, Blair. If I were the type to cast aspersions I might say that a certain SEJ evangelism conference was short a Christian episcopal leader. Glad I’m not that sort.
There is a proposal at the Great Plains AC to join the WJ
My prayers that it will be accepted!!!!! 🙂
Having Great Plains join the Western Jurisdiction would be a fascinating development. The northern conferences in the South Central Jurisdiction have long felt disenfranchised by the Texas conferences, who are the 900-pound gorilla in the region. Perhaps if Great Plains joins Western, it will have more opportunity for equal participation in many ways. I will watch for the results of this petition with great interest.
Great post, Jeremy. Picking up for UM Insight!
I know for a fact you would be welcomed in the northcentral. Like the Cornhuskers, maybe it’s time to join the Big Ten of Jurisdictions.
When I was active in the Nebraska Annual Conference many years ago, it was fairly commonly felt by some of the leadership that we were the “hind tit” of the SCJ. (For those of you not farm-aware, that particular designation would be avoided by any calf who wanted a decent supply of milk.) I wish you the best in your attempts to join the West! After all, Nebraska is “Where the West Begins.”
Thanks for the post, Jeremy, and for reading my latest plan. I would only state that the goal of the Five Rules is not the elimination of the Western Jurisdiction. I could see the WJ being joined by conferences that desire a more progressive approach to marriage and ministry. There is currently a proposal before the Great Plains Annual Conference to consider affiliating with the WJ, or another jurisdiction in which they might have greater voice (they seem frustrated at being an appendage of Texas). The Five Rules would make this move easier for the Great Plains Conference.
I could see a more conservative conference like West Virginia leaving the NEJ and perhaps affiliating with the SEJ.
Before you interpret this as an attack on progressive jurisdictions, please also remember that the WJ and NEJ could merge, forming a more sizable progressive presence in the UMC. The Five Rules also could create moderate UMC jurisdictions in which progressives might feel at home.
Rule #5 could just as easily state that a jurisdiction must have four episcopal areas instead of five if this is a great concern. I really didn’t anticipate this being an issue. In general, I think it is good for the UMC to avoid having jurisdictions that are very small and very driven by ideology. Requiring more episcopal areas per jurisdiction keeps pockets of the church from going rogue.
“Rule #5 could just as easily state that a jurisdiction must have four episcopal areas instead of five…” but it did not–it “coincidentally” matches up with the Western Jurisdiction and yes, that’s of great concern. Our “pocket” has not gone “rogue”–we are just applying a little more “reason” and the Spirit is guiding us toward a less literal and more loving interpretation of Scripture than some in the more conservative pockets. Having conferences recombine based on differences in beliefs, rather than what makes geographical sense doesn’t seem to be a very efficient use of UMC resources. Far better to remove the exclusionary language from our documents and become a more loving, inclusive, and forward-looking denomination, rather than the opposite…in my opinion.
Let us remind ourselves that we are United Methodists and in the tradition of our Methodist founder “the world is our parish”. Where are the voices of missionary minded folks who would see the potential for growing the church in the west. If you need more Methodists I am on my way!
I feel this same way. And I am appalled at the earlier comment from Blair about a bishop who dissed his going to Western because “there are no Christians out there.” (I’m tempted to say that attitude is enough for a chargeable offense, but we’ve had enough of that). The West sounds like an ideal mission field to me!
As a UMC attender for most of my +40 years I’ve noticed that most if not all of the ministers seem to be similar in their liberal leanings. I’ve always wondered why more conservative minded ministers never made it to my home church. I’ve left the church to more conservative churches (Southern Baptist and Non-denominational) over the years, but I’ve always kept in touch since my parents still attend. I actually sing in the church band for my home UMC church now, but I still keep biting my tongue when I hear something preached that doesn’t sound biblical or obviously goes against the discipline. Sadly, I really feel that most church attenders are just there for the ride…. and regardless of where the church goes ….. they will stay because it is their home church. I wish “missionaries” from the more conservative jurisdictions could come in and preach to some of hour dwindling congregations.
Lest anyone think that this was an isolated attempt to legislate the progressive voice out of the connection, I invite UMs to take a look at the other resolutions that passed in the Texas Annual Conference. Resolution 5 is a free market capitalist jewel which came to be designated among the minority as the “Don’t Alienate the Wealthy” or “The Poor Should Work Harder” resolution. Warning: Not for the timid. http://www.txcumc.org/2015resolutions
There’s some ironic language at 1’51” in the video for Resolution 5: “”It is currently the official language of the United Methodist Church, yet it does not reflect the positions of many, and it offends many of those we hope to welcome into our congregations.” Hmmmm….the same thing could be said about the “incompatible with Christian teaching” language, so I’ll offer a proposal: in exchange for taking out the language offensive to the rich from par. 163 (The Economic Community), we take out the “incompatible with Christian teaching” language! C’mon conservatives–that’s a win-win, don’t you think?
Hmmm… I think I remember something about a camel and the eye of a needle….
Why make plans to do away with the Western jurisdiction? I just saw the movie, SAN ANDREAS, and Mother Nature has already made the arrangements…
Jeremy, perhaps there is another reason to fold the WJ into other jurisdictions. You speak of the WJ as progressive. Why so little diversity? Is there an orthodox contingent there and, if so, are they completely marginalized?
In Western PA, our Bishop is calling on us to elect a diverse slate to GC & JC. Is diversity as highly valued in the WJ or is it more a progressive monolith?
If more theological diversity were demonstrated, maybe it would be easier for UMs in TX et al to value the WJ as a partner, rather than a concern.
Diversity at General Conference comes from the variety. So while Western PA may send a diverse delegation, Texas will not and California will not. But when we are all there, the diversity exists.
Too often, seeking diversity in a one-sided conference leads to a lack of diversity at the actual Conference. The diversity will be there: conferences should pick the best delegates they trust for the role, not worrying about ideology.
But is there sufficient diversity within the WJ? There surely is in the NEJ. If the entire WJ is just progressive without adequate orthodox representation, that’s a problem for a denomination which values diversity. It doesn’t seem like the WJ is very diverse.
Keith is right. The WJ is not diverse in the sense of hosting a robust evangelical/orthodox caucus. It just consists of a beaten-down little band. They chirp but do not sing.
When I was observing the General Conference in 2004 as a student at Claremont, I had lunch with a lay delegate who was a member of the Board of Ordained Ministry. He admitted a bias toward graduates of Fuller over Claremont, expressed a sense of commitment to being an “Orthodox gatekeeper,” and seemed pretty connected and powerful. There are regions of conservatism in Southern California, Central California, Western Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado. The idea that there is no diversity of theological/ecclesiological opinion in the west is a generalization.
Now–if structural decisions to support fiscal responsibility and correct over-representation is at issue, why not shine the light on the inflated representation of 200,000 professing members in Philippines (due to there being 24 annual conferences with minimum 2 representatives to GC) and the same in Europe Central Conference–not a single annual conference with more than the minimum 2 required. That puts 50 delegates from Philippines at GC, 40 Europeans, while the Western Jurisdiction languishes with 30. Not because there are less Methodists on the rolls (indeed, there are more in WJ than in Philippines and Europe), but because there are less annual conferences. Hmmmm…..
http://s3.amazonaws.com/Website_Properties/who-we-are/documents/gc2014-delegate-count.pdf
I think it’s fair to say that Evangelicals in the West feel marginalized,. Ethnic diversity is increasing in the West, but White Liberals don’t seem to be able to reach them. Charismatic and conservative churches do much better. But much of the West is not heavily populated, and that is another difficulty for ministry here. The issue is more complex that Jurisdictional administration.
Love the graphic. As an elder in the Virginia Conference on loan to Cal-Pac, on a treasure map “X” marks where the real treasure is!
These proposals do not go far enough. We should disband all jurisdictions and elect bishops at quadrennial gatherings of the nation wide church. Jurisdictions were created (out of mistrust and compromise) as part of the formation of the Methodist Church in 1939. They have become fiefdoms where regional biases are amplified to the world stage.
Being an alternate from the Cal-Pac Conference, when we elected all of our delegates, diversity was stressed in the process. I put our GC and WJC delegation against any other in the UMC in regard to diversity and the wide spectrum of members in the denomination. And yes, there are Christians in California. Some amazing, awesome Christians.
“diversity was stressed in the process”
What kind of diversity? Diversity in race/sex/orientation, or true diversity – i.e. diversity of opinions?
This is pretty much off the wall! They obviously know little about the Western Jurisdiction.
Why would “they” want the WJ to come over and be attached to them? Oh, maybe they want our financial resources. Nah, couldn’t be. (smiley face here). Maybe they want to improve their statistical reports. Not that either. What’s the real reason, the subversive, unrevealed reason?
Maybe the proposal should be: Add Conferences TO the WJ instead: the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, and New Mexico. That would be fun. Lots and lots of wide open territory. Throw in Oklahoma and Texas for good measure. Texas will find out what a really big area looks like. Huge distances for D.S.’s to drive. Maybe the bishops could have a little card game to see who wins the job of the largest Area.
As long as we are allowing divisions to take center stage, our movement will suffer. We must put God and church above all things that devide us. We are only are as strong as our weakest link. To remove the link as opposed to fixing, building or repairing it would only make tha chain smaller. In Peace Mike
Very provocative article giving insight into WJ and progressive church’s. For many years I have chosen to attend several church’s progressive and traditional (or conservative) at the same time to hear both sides and make a valid decision for myself. I think assimilation and controlling jurisdiction or turf is not the solution. For millions in prison, for folks on reservation’s, for poor in urban ghettos that does not always seem to work to make for a better community and world. I often get labeled or stereotyped as a liberal (progressive) for working with and supporting homeless folks, prisoners, gay and lesbian folks, and many marginalized people. Yet, in over 50 years I have never encouraged anyone to be poor, homeless, prisoner, gay or lesbian. I try to follow Issiah 61 and love the poor, oppressed, bound up, etc.
Am statistician for Rocky Mountain. Have served on CF&A. Been here since 2000 and got here from VA.
First, thank you Jeremy for some of the analysis. Excellent work.
I am personally troubled that the Rocky Mountain Conference was for Colorado and Wyoming at the national average in the mid-1950s (including the EUB crowd) of ratio of what is now UM to population. We are in those two states, well under the ratio of where we were in the 50s and well behind the national average. Why? I am mindful in part it is the none zone impact, but that isn’t all of it. I do think we lost our way … and are re-finding it …
When I was reappointed from Colorado Springs to Salt Lake (in 2012), my friends in VA thought I had changed conferences. Changed states, right, therefore, surely you changed conferences. My DS has all of Utah and that portion of CO west of the continental divide. All of Utah and half of CO. The DS for Wyoming has ALL of Wyoming. Less than 600,000 people but ALL of Wyoming. (DS for Wyoming is shared by both Yellowstone and Rocky). The distances here are incredible. Any one those three (Utah, CO or Wyoming) are larger than NY or PA or VA or GA. Few people but enormous distances.
If you were to drive from Los Angeles to Boston the right (or wrong?) way, and it took four days … all of one of those days could be spent in Rocky. (If you entered near Las Vegas and left near Rapid City) and we are looking at probably merging with Yellowstone which will make the geographic dispersion even greater. Probably inevitable. Probably necessary.
Rocky paid 100% of its national and jurisdictional apportionment in 2014 and will do so also in 2015 and is budgeted to do so in 2016. Nearly $2M. We are assessed 1.3% of the operating costs of the UMC and we get .7% of the representation. I am sure other conferences could make a similar observation.
Forgive my rambling. I don’t see the proposals here as “serious” but they do indicate a deeper issue. And again, thank you Jeremy for quality conversion of numbers into narrative.
Peace …
Dennis
Dennis, I am not sure what you mean by the statement that “we are assessed 1.3% of the operating costs of the UMC and we get .7% of the representation.” Is that representation at General Conference, the Council of Bishops, the Connectional Table or something else?
Are you suggesting that representation should be based on monetary contributions?
Your comments on the vastness of the West provide good perspective. The only way for the area to grow is evangelism, and overall, except in Africa and maybe the Philippines, the United Methodist Church has lost its evangelistic fervor.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
Well said, Dennis! And thank you for your service as statistician. I am no good with numbers, and am grateful for those who are!
Jeremy
on another point, the WJ leads the church in per capita giving to missions. in this we put the South to shame.
I had a long conversation with a friend from Texas while at the Spring meeting of GBGM. He thought this was a joke, and certainly an embarrassment to Texas United Methodists.
In so many ways the West is leading the church. it is just a pity that some folks don’t appreciate the progressive lean that we are effecting on the denomination.
If the church is to survive, and be relevant, they need to get on board with us.
Jim Frisbie, WJ rep on the Advance Com.
Jeremy– As the author of the resolution on jurisdictions which passed the Texas Annual Conference, please allow me to share some of the thinking behind that proposal. First, it is not intended to be vindictive or punitive in any sense. While most of my colleagues would consider me to be an orthodox evangelical, I believe that other voices are helpful in the conversation of the total church and I have never been in favor of suppressing them. There are good reasons, however, to re-examine the whole jurisdictional structure which emerged out of the 1939 merger. It is fairly well accepted historically that the reason for the jurisdictions in the first place was to keep Northern bishops out of the south, Southern bishops out of the north, and African-Americans segregated into their own jurisdiction. The latter situation was finally remedied in 1968 when the Central Jurisdiction was abolished as part of moving towards The United Methodist Church, but some would argue that the jurisdictions as a whole remain tinged with that racist past.
What is clearer is that both the culture and nation have changed dramatically in terms of demographics and attitude over the past 75 years, but the jurisdictional lines have not. That is what has resulted in an enormous disparity in sizes, with the Southeast at 2.8 million members, the South Central at around 1.7, the Northeast and North Central at 1.25 each, but the Western at only 340,000. I make no attempt to adjudge all of the reasons for that, nor would I suggest that it is simply a matter of theological differences at work here– I suspect it is far more complex than any such reductionist analysis. The result is, however, that there are some financial incongruities in play, as well. Perhaps it has changed as you suggest, but at least four years ago, the Southeast was indeed helping to cover the episcopal expenses of not just the Western Jurisdiction, but some of the others as well. And clearly, if one looks at the number of bishops per membership ratio, there is something ajar when one conference in Georgia has a single bishop, but the Western Jurisdiction with somewhat less members has five.
To be sure, there are enormous geographical distances involved in your region which may make it difficult for even five bishops to get around the area in any regular fashion. And there are certainly other representation issues in the broader church, as one of your respondents noted with respect to the Philippines and their delegate allocation for General Conference. But attempts to address those issues at the last two General Conferences have been thwarted by some rather clever tactics used by those who saw the loopholes and quickly jumped through them.
So what’s really behind the proposal is simply getting the 2016 General Conference to recognize that our older system of geographical divisions may need a fresh look. To be honest, I could just as easily have divided the country into three regions rather than four. What the proposal does do in that regard, however, is to change the constitution so that future General Conferences can more easily make adjustments without need of a constitutional amendment. I would object a little, in this respect to the characterization of “gerrymandering” the jurisdictions, however. The division that is proposed is hardly torturous in its geographical dimensions– it divides the country into four logical quadrants, roughly bisected by the Mississippi River and the Mason-Dixon line. Again, the goal is to move towards more balanced regions numerically, pure and simple. Why not break up the Southeast then? That may need to be addressed, to be sure. I simply couldn’t find a logical way to separate it out, but perhaps others can. The overall aim is also to become a bit more lean in our denominational structure, however. That is precisely why so many annual conferences have similarly downsized the number of districts over the past few years, in fact, and why we as a denomination should consider doing so now as well.
So what impact would this proposal have in terms of the progressive witness? While some will argue that it is intended to stifle those voices in the West, I would counter that I think it will provide a greater forum for all the voices within the church to be heard in many quarters. While I applaud the diversity represented in your College of Bishops, I would caution a little against too much spiritual pride in that, for other colleges are also reflective of the inclusive church, even if you do not think so. There would seem to be some value for all, however, in having a Bishop Carcano in the same college as a Bishop Jones. Accountability is a two-way street for us all, my brother, and insofar as possible, our structures ought to allow for such.
I am happy to hear you speak of the vitality of the western congregations, but clearly, given the enormous population of the area, we ought to be doing better at the number of disciples we are making. So again, perhaps some cross-fertilization between regions would be helpful in rethinking how we are appealing to the cultures around us. You suggest that the West has much to teach the rest of the church about appealing to the “nones” among us. Fair enough, then– so let’s find some ways to make those conversations happen. A re-allocation of jurisdictional lines might just be the thing to cause us all to look more carefully at how we can begin to fulfill our mission to the world.
I cannot begin to speak to the motives of the other proposals which are out there and may appear on the doorstep of our denomination at Portland. But I can tell you that at least my motivation is about moving forward, not remaining mired in the muck of a conversational cul-de-sac. It is for that reason, by the way, that I also authored a re-write of Paragraph 161F, our Social Principles statement on human sexuality. That rewrite removes the abrasive “incompatibility” language and no longer singles out gays and lesbians for any particular disapprobation by the church. On the other hand, it reaffirms our long-standing witness that any sexual behavior outside of the context of a loving, monogamous marriage covenant between a man and a woman is not in keeping with God’s intentionality behind the gift of human sexuality. I was gratified to see that it passed with the support of both conservatives and progressives within our conference. Some of those in the former group were a little anxious, I know, that we were giving away too much ground in dropping the abrasive language, and others in the reconciling camp would have preferred that we broaden the definition of marriage to include loving same-sex partners. But in the end, we all agreed that some step forward is more important than winning it all.
That’s my hope for the jurisdictional proposal as well. Already, the Great Plains Conference has voiced an interest in attaching itself to another jurisdiction. Should it receive a hearing at General Conference, I have no doubt that the resolution will be subject to all kinds of amendments. But at least we can get the conversation going. Thanks for your own contribution to the discussion and I look forward to seeing how it all plays out in the coming months. Should anyone wish to correspond directly about any of the resolutions that came out of the Texas Annual Conference, I’d also be happy to do so with them via my email, chappell@cumcsl.org.
I have no doubt whatsoever that in the years to come, the Lord will have his church. My hope is that the United Methodist community can still be a part of it.
There is no question we have a serious division in our Methodist Denomination. God makes the statement in the Bible that when a house is divided it will fail. That is what is happening in our denomination today. We have not heard enough lay people, pastors, and Bishops stand up of God’s word on the two social issues that are causing this division. Each individual in the United Methodist Church needs to meditate and pray on the following scriptures between now and General Conference.
1. Leviticus 18:22 “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” Also read Leviticus 20:13.
2. 1 Corinthians 7:2 ” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”
3.Deuteronomy 4:2 “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.”
This scripture in Deuteronomy probably has had to most effect on my spiritual journey. I asked myself after reading and meditation on Deuteronomy 4:2 the following question. What kind of questions will God ask me on my judgment day. What if he asks me if I still have sin in my life? Will I still get a pass to go to Heaven?
4. Hebrews 10:26-27 “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. I have quoted scripture from the NIV bible.
All of us need to meditate and pray and accept Gods word regarding the social issues that are dividing the United Methodist Church. This is the only way we will avoid a major split in the Methodist denomination. God Bless, Leo
Jeremy,
Please give us your definition of “progressive”.
Thanks
Hello Alan,
Every progressive is different but this is a pretty good list. I’m not 100% each of these but they are a succinct summary.
https://baptistnews.com/perspectives/what-does-a-progressive-christian-statement-of-faith-look-like/
Blessings,
Jeremy
Thanks Jeremy. (I hadn’t received notification of your response so this is a bit delayed.) It is good to clearly define one’s intended advocacy. Vague language can take our focus off of Christ, confuse rather than inform, hinder faith in Christ rather than encourage and share it, and divide brethren of the faith.
‘But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.’ – John 3:21 [NRSV]
My definition of “progressive”, as applied to Christian, differs significantly from faith claims such as The Phoenix Affirmations. (I can’t help notice the irony of its author criticizing the Christians who developed our biblical creeds and doctrines while himself proclaiming a seemingly revisionist creed. A further concern for me is that the author relies on the phrase “in Christ” yet doesn’t inform the reader as to its meaning according to Holy Scripture.)
I am very grateful to God for the clarity and forthrightness of the foundational documents of the United Methodist Church (UMC) [See reference at bottom.]. For example, Articles IV and IX of our Confession of Faith document make clear to all who would fellowship with us that salvation is had by penitent sinners only through faith in Christ Jesus of Nazareth. I have a hard time conceiving of a love of God or a love of neighbor that results in a Christian denying Christ or leaving one’s neighbor/friend/loved-ones to suffer and die in their sins through a shirked, discipleship obligation to “deny the legitimacy of other paths”. Adhering to 2 Timothy 2:23-26 while delivering the good news of John 3:16 prior to pointing to the Holy Scriptures and our foundational documents strike me as an honest, righteous, and loving presentation of Christ. They will know we are Christians by our love.
‘But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.’ – 2 Timothy 2:23-26 [NKJV]
‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed.’ – John 3:16-20 [NRSV]
Those who pursue gods by other paths will at least know that the true kingdom of God has drawn near to them and the true Christ Jesus has been preached to them at the United Methodist Church.
Jeremy, the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Grace be with you. Amen.
References:
[http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/foundational-documents]
Article IV – The Holy Bible
We believe the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith nor is it to be taught as essential to salvation.
Article IX — Justification and Regeneration
We believe we are never accounted righteous before God through our works or merit, but that penitent sinners are justified or accounted righteous before God only by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
We believe regeneration is the renewal of man in righteousness through Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature and experience newness of life. By this new birth the believer becomes reconciled to God and is enabled to serve him with the will and the affections.
We believe, although we have experienced regeneration, it is possible to depart from grace and fall into sin; and we may even then, by the grace of God, be renewed in righteousness.
The End.
Honestly,
I have very little comment or opinion on redistribution of jurisdictions. I am a member of the Central Texas Conference, and we used to share a Bishop with the North Texas Conference, so I know just a bit about realignment. I am sure those in the Great Plains can speak well to changes in higher structures as well.
I do have a major comment about all of this though. Isn’t it all a bit of re-arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic? Of all the major issues pressing in upon the UMC, jurisdictions and how they are aligned seems to me to be way down the list or priorities.