In 2018’s Marvel movie Black Panther, before the Black Panther T’Challa could become King, he must fight any contenders to the throne at a special ceremony. To make the fight fair, T’Challa must drink a liquid that removes the superhuman abilities granted to Black Panther. The winner of the fight becomes King and gains back the Black Panther superpowers.
This power-sucking image serves as a helpful illustration of the primary effect of the Connectional Conferences plan…to reverse the unique power of United Methodism and reduce us to something less than the sum of our parts. Instead of our diversity being our strength, our diversity becomes our division.
The Plan
This plan is perhaps the most complex of the three models. As currently written, it would do away with the five jurisdictions in the U.S. and replace them with three (non-geographical) connectional conferences, each with its own theological viewpoint and response to issues related to LGBTQ inclusion. You can imagine a progressive (full inclusion), traditionalist (continued full exclusion), and moderate (each church chooses their own way, basically a small One Church plan) conferences, but there are probably other ways to do it.
These connectional conferences would continue to operate under the big umbrella of United Methodism, sharing common doctrinal standards, jointly supporting mission and ministries outside of the U.S., and utilizing a shared general church administrative infrastructure.
The creation of the connectional conferences would begin at the jurisdictional or central conference level, though annual conferences and local churches may vote by simple majority to join a different connectional conference.
The following outline examines how the Plan affects each circle of United Methodism. This section was drawn from the legislation and prepared by a third party, with some local editing.
What happens to local churches?
- Local congregations may choose to align themselves with the connectional conference selected by their Jurisdictional and Annual Conferences, or they may vote by simple majority to join a different connectional conference altogether.
- Decisions on allowing or disallowing same-sex weddings will be determined by the policies of the connectional conference with which a local church chooses to affiliate.
What happens to Clergy?
- Clergy may affiliate with one or more connectional conferences but must meet specific qualifications and abide by the standards of conduct established by the connectional conference(s) to which s/he belongs.
- Clergy choices regarding affiliation will become a consequential factor in the appointive process, which will still be led by the Cabinet of each Annual Conference.
- Ordinations will be recognized jointly by all connectional conferences. However, fitness for service and ability to affiliate will be determined by each connectional conference.
What happens to Annual Conferences?
- As previously noted, Annual Conferences may vote by simple majority to affiliate with a different connectional conference than the one selected by the Jurisdictional Conference.
- As deemed necessary, decisions about “which connectional conference to affiliate with” may be reconsidered after four years.
What happens to Bishops?
- This plan envisions maintaining the current Council of Bishops but reorganizing the various colleges of bishops so that they are directly affiliated with a connectional conference.
- The Council of Bishops would continue to provide leadership in ecumenical relations and also serve as a creative hub for learning and sharing best practices for innovative ministries.
- Similar to the current jurisdictional and central conference structures, each college of bishops would provide supervision and accountability for the bishops assigned to that particular connectional conference.
- U.S. bishops will be financially supported by their assigned connectional conference; while bishops outside of the U.S. will be jointly funded by every connectional conference.
What happens to Central Conferences?
- Central Conferences can choose to affiliate with a U.S. based connectional conference or create up to five additional connectional conferences of their own.
What happens to the General Church?
- Some general administrative agencies would continue to exist and be jointly supported by all of the connectional conferences: Wespath, the Publishing House, General Council on Finance and Administration, Archives and History, etc.
- The general program boards and agencies would be reorganized and revamped based on the future agreements of the connectional conferences that decide to utilize and financially support them. For example, United Methodist Women would have to be chosen to be supported by a connectional conference, and then they would negotiate funds given and resources received. Given the polarities, I wouldn’t be surprised if every program agency is either cut in 1/3 or 2/3.
- Each connectional conference would devise its own Book of Discipline, using the current Articles of Religion, Confessions of Faith, the General Rules, etc., as a common starting point.
- The Judicial Council would be comprised of two representatives from each connectional conference and would still have ultimate authority over matters of church law. Additionally, each connectional conference will be free to organize their own judicial body to decide matters related to their Book of Discipline.
- A much shorter General Conference would still retain authority over the constitution as well as the shared administrative agencies and services. It would also provide opportunities to share best practices related to mission and ministry.
Specific Commentary
Here’s a link to the full plan, starting on page 132. The Connectional Conference plan is on document pages 26-54. It’s a lot of legalese that is summarized in the previous section (and this is the most complex proposal), but I do want to draw out three items of note.
First, the timeline for implementation on page 36-37 goes until 2025. That’s a long time of implementation, whereas both the OneChurch and the Traditionalist model take full effect within 18 months of passage.
Second, in the section addressing the General Agencies (page 43), it reads that only Conferences that want support or resources from Church and Society (among others) will pay apportionments to it. Fascinating. The Traditionalists hate our social witness so much they don’t want to pay a dime towards it, and are willing to starve all the program agencies to do it.
Finally, the Judicial Council becomes more representative and less politically charged, with page 45 indicating that each Connectional Conference will elect their own members to the JC (two each). That will keep it from being too weighted one way or another. We should do this anyway in some way!
Hacking Christianity (HX) Perspective
The United Methodist Church has a long history of mergers, schisms, reunifications, and offshoots. Our current unique quality is being both progressive and conservative evangelical together, holding in tension our various streams of social action, holiness, pietism, and others. This plan is supported by most academic circles who see it as the best way to maintain our various streams.
But to HX, what the plan does is take The UMC back in time. Back to before the EUB merger in 1968. Back to the non-geographic conferences created in 1939. It removes our affinity and affiliations to name-only. I doubt it would increase our affections, only our animosity, as the sadly accurate joke goes.
Maybe that’s okay. Maybe we need some breathing space and to prioritize our rigid Traditions over Scripture’s call for mutual growth. But knowing the human tribalism and polarization culture that is at a peak right now, I don’t see an extended time-out helping us grow more together in love.
In conclusion, the Connectional Conferences Plan’s goal is not to create a reconciled church over the divisive debate over LGBTQ inclusion. Its goal is to preserve the institutional structures and cater our programs to our polarities. Maybe at the end of the day, that’s the best we can hope for.
Your turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
so what happens at a local church level. Does this mean that in a sane city churches can all belong to a different conference. For example a church which supports and welcome all as full members would be in one conference while a conservative church that does not would be in different conference??
Just a couple of corrections and observations:
Local churches would not have to choose to remain with their current Annual Conference (and by extension, its parent Connectional Conference); that relationship automatically continues unless a church votes to affiliate with another Connectional Conference. Local churches are not permitted to vote on re-affiliation within four years of a previous vote.
I’m not sure where your source got the potential for clergy affiliating with multiple Connectional Conferences; the proposed legislation (pp. 172-173 of the pdf published by the Judicial Council) indicates that clergy designate a single annual conference for their membership but may also indicate a willingness to serve within a different “annual/connectional conference” so long as they “agree to meet the qualifications of the different annual/connectional conference and maintain the standards of conduct as set forth by the annual/connectional conference they are serving.” Failure to maintain those standards constitutes grounds for revocation of their appointment.
The merger in 1939 of the ME, ME South, and Methodist Protestant Churches to create The Methodist Church saw only one non-geographic jurisdiction (not conference), the Central Jurisdiction, which separated black churches from the rest of the church. (And yet, the CJ was not coterminous with the US border–the six New England states and twelve western states were apparently excluded from it, based on existing historical maps. So while it had geographical borders, it was an overlay jurisdiction created for the singular purpose of segregation.) Five other jurisdictions: Western, North Central, South Central, Northeastern, and Southeastern were almost identical to the same-named jurisdictions of today and were created primarily to maintain sufficient separation between the territories and people of the Old South and those of the North simply because neither North nor South could sufficiently trust being led by the others’ bishops. I’m sure your experiences in the Bible Belt and the extreme Northeast and Northwest regions have seen that our dysfunctional, multidirectional distrust of each other’s motivations and intentions within the connection hasn’t lessened but has simply shifted over time.
Sorry, Lynda, the above comments were intended to be a general reply to Jeremy’s thoughts and not your own response to it.
In response to your question, yes there could be multiple UM churches in the same city belonging to three different Connectional Conferences and thus living out very different expressions of their inherently different Christian-anthropological understandings.
Hi John.
To your second point. 11b on page 41 of the document (not the PDF) indicates multiple Connectional conferences. Perhaps I should have written “serve in” rather than “affiliate with”. Would that solve your objection?
Thanks, Jeremy
That’s precisely the place I was reading (along with 11a for the time of transition from the existing structure into the new). I’m not objecting so much as clarifying. “Affiliate” is a Disciplinary term used to refer to a very specific relationship of a clergy member to an annual conference; that relationship is not what I believe you were inferring here. Just trying to avoid confusion.
If each connectional conference has 2 members to the Judicial Council, and there are 3 US based connectional conferences, and there can be up to 5 central conference connectional conferences … We could have a 16 person council with 6 US members? That would be a change.
Thanks for you analysis of this Pastor!
It is complex.
But we (Methodists) have developed an advertising campaign (my background is marketing), that touts our “Open Doors, Open Hearts, Open Minds.” Those are just words unless they are backed up at the “point of sale”….e.g. the altar.
If we don’t do that, then we are part of the Christian hypocrisy. We are not authentic. We are losing members.
We are indeed going backward. John Wesley began his movement based on the exclusionary nature of the church of England. We truly do NOT embody the Open Doors, Open Hearts, Open Minds that our denomination touts. We are becoming so rigid, legalistic, and hypocritical that we should expect to be losing members and respect. Our Social Principles and Resolutions are meaningless with the direction in which we seem to be heading. Without our social witness, we are just clanging gongs at the end of the day. We have forgotten the meaning of Agape and of Love of neighbor. When other neighboring denominations are finally reaching full inclusion of all including LGBTQ, we are judging, condemning, excluding, and headed right toward Pharisee-ism. We are failing as the body of Christ.
Consider the likely alternatives.
If the Traditionalist option is adopted, the more liberal churches and conferences would probably feel compelled to leave the United Methodist Church, presumably to establish a separate Methodist denomination – at least temporarily. I sort of suspect it may not be long before they might merge with another liberal Protestant denomination; maybe, perhaps, something like the United Church of Christ?
Yet the One Church Plan would be unacceptable to the traditionalists. They would most likely leave, but I suspect not to form a separate Methodist denomination, but rather to become a multitude of independent churches.
Yes, at the end of the day, the Connectional Conference Plan is the best we can hope for.
This plan envisions maintaining the current Council of Bishops but reorganizing the various colleges of bishops so that they are directly affiliated with a connectional conference.
hmm, this seems very ….
ahan , so I have a riddle and puzzle
What has a bottom at the top? it is a really great riddle with answer