Reams of paper have been printed, and millions of pixels have been illuminated on failures of the Traditionalist Plan to be a good, graceful, or even legal future for The United Methodist Church.
But very little has been examined about the way how representation will change, and the significant way how hundreds of thousands of Methodists would have their voting rights removed if the Traditionalist Plan fulfills its goals.
Dwindling USA General Conference Representation
A quick primer and numbers breakdown (feel free to skim). General Conference is the highest body of The United Methodist Church and writes its doctrine and polity. Between 800-1000 delegates from across the world gather to worship, consider, write, and vote in changes to our doctrine and polity.
“Who is in the room?” is a fair question as General Conference. Depending on what region you live in affects how much voice you have at General Conference, and that voice fluctuates over time.
Between the 1996 and the 2000 General Conferences, US jurisdictions and non-US central conferences did not see much change in delegate percentages across the connection. Every region changed by a percentage point or less in those four years. But the 2000 General Conference voted in a new way of assigning delegates: no longer would it consider both clergy and laity membership totals, the assignments would solely be on local church membership totals. It basically turned General Conference into the House of Representatives, with large pew membership conferences amassing large delegations, and with minimum representation for smaller conferences.
Since that change, larger percentage shifts started to be seen. After the redistribution, from 2004 to 2012, the northern jurisdictions were reduced by 82 votes at General Conference, and the southern jurisdictions were reduced by 100 votes. The West was only reduced 12 votes in the same time span. African Central Conferences went from 186 delegates in 2004 to 372 in 2012.
The 2016 and future 2020 General Conferences dramatically reduced the total numbers of delegates (previous conferences were all within a 10 delegate variance), so to maintain the comparison we have to shift from votes to percentages. From 2004 to 2020, the northern jurisdictions were reduced by 11% of their representation and the southern jurisdictions were reduced by 12% of their representation. Overall from 2004 to 2020, the USA represesentation was reduced by 24.4% while African Central Conferences added 21.6% to its representation over the same time period.
The percentages now are that the USA jurisdictions represent 55.9% of the vote at General Conference 2020, and African Central Conferences represent 32.3%, with other central conferences filling in the remainder. The anticipation is that the USA delegations would be at or lower than 50% of United Methodism starting in 2024.
*Special thanks to WJ’s Richard Bentley for his help with these numbers.
Why mess with a good formula?
This distribution of varied geographies and regions makes United Methodism a unique denomination on the world stage with African voices and American voices both together at the highest levels–in substantial numbers–and a diverse denomination with progressive regions and conservative regions together at the same table.
But what if you wanted to increase your region or perspective’s voice? How do you gain votes and seats at the table? The acceptable way is to evangelize and increase the number of United Methodists in your region.
But it turns out there’s a shady way to do it: remove the votes from
Traditionalist Plan Removes Voting Ability
The Traditionalist Plan, for consideration by General Conference 2019, encourages progressive annual conferences to leave United Methodism and form their own self-governing affiliated-autonomous conferences, as we’ve described previously. Exited conferences get to take their churches and (some of) their pensions and their clergy and conference structures, and so on, but what they don’t get to take with them are their votes.
The legislation reads (italics are descriptions, underlines are TP additions)
Petition 17. Amend ¶¶ 570 and 574.1 to create the option of concordat churches in the United States. The changes in these paragraphs shall take effect immediately upon the adjournment of the 2019 General Conference.
¶ 570. Churches located outside the boundaries of the jurisdictional conferences and churches formed through the provisions of ¶ 2801 and which have entered into
relationship with or have agreements with The United Methodist Church, including that of sending representatives to General Conference of The United Methodist Church are described as follows:¶ 574. Concordat Agreements
1. With the exception of The Methodist Church of Great Britain and churches formed through the provisions of ¶ 2801, such concordats may be established…
Rationale: This opens the possibility for concordat churches in the United States, allowing negotiated covenants and relationships between self-governing Methodist churches formed under ¶ 2801 and The United Methodist Church. This allows a continuing connection with those congregations departing from the denomination because of conscience.
So these exited conferences would likely become a Concordat Church. Concordat Churches get two votes each. No matter their size, they get the same number (except Great Britain – they get four).
The Traditionalist Plan hope is that the Western Jurisdiction and maybe half of the northern jurisdictions leave, which means their votes disappear too, as they would be allocated 2 votes total for their entire new region of Methodism. That’s right: hundreds of thousands of United Methodists will get 2 votes at General Conference total.
And the West and parts of the North? They would be affiliated without representation in their former spiritual home.
Not just Votes, but Direction
The expulsion of progressive conferences solves two problems for Traditionalists.
- It removes progressive voices from helping determine the future of the denomination. The schism in the 1840s separated the South and the North , enabling both visions of Methodism to go their separate ways. It was relatively clean as far as slave-affirming and abolitionist lines go. But the same situation is not present today, as progressives and Traditionalists share every conference in United Methodism. The original Traditionalist Plan legislation allowed churches and clergy to leave, thus allowing those mixed conferences to split along ideological lines. The loss of membership numbers is nothing compared to the number of votes the remaining conference would then control—and the lessened numbers of dissenting voices.
- Second, we haven’t even mentioned the kicker: those regions would be removed from membership on boards of directors of the General Boards and Agencies. Boards and Agencies draw from United Methodists, not Concordat relationships (I can only find one Concordat director in all of United Methodism looking back multiple terms). So at least a third of these boards would no longer come from progressive regions: they would be entirely populated by conservative and moderate voices, with the progressive voices reduced to tokens.
Are there fixes?
The chorus that arises whenever valid criticism is made of the Traditionalist Plan is “we can fix it. Just pass it and we can fix it.” And that’s true to a point: We do have a different Concordat relationship with the British Methodists where they send a higher number of votes than other Concordat churches. And so such an arrangement could be made that bring 2 votes to a higher number.
But any such arrangement could be easily revoked by a future General Conference. It would take only a tiny slight or prophetic action by the exited conference to justify the newly empowered Traditionalist majority to revoke their special relationship, rendering it back down to 2.
Finally, supporters rightly say that an exited conference IS a new denomination and shouldn’t have a say at all in the former denomination, as the parent doesn’t have a say in the child one either. That’s true. But none of the other Concordat churches participated in the creation and care for all these boards and agencies and structures for decades
It feels less like a divorce and more like theft.
The Only Choice for Fair Representation
The purpose of the Traditionalist Plan is to make The UMC so unbearable to progressives, and the way out so easy, that progressives choose to leave (or in some scenarios, are forced out). By doing so, the remaining Traditionalist powers-that-be gain more votes at General Conference, gain more director’s seats at denominational authorities, and enjoy better pension benefit improvements (as previously reported). The Plan is less about LGBTQ persons than it is about consolidating control.
There is no fix. The only choice is to vote it down.
My hope is that delegates see the Traditionalist Plan is less about LGBTQ inclusion–and certainly not church unity–and more about gerrymandering the votes and director’s seats away from vast swaths of United Methodism and creating a hegemony where there previously was a gracious unity.
Will they prevail? The choice is yours.
Your turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
Jeremy, I disagree with your contention that this is about a power grab. The evangelicals I know are not interested in trying to run the denomination. Many would be happy just to have a gracious exit so that they can be free from a church which increasingly tries to tell them how to run their lives and that the faith they grew up with is really exclusivistic and hateful. Many would be more than happy to give the progressives the boards and agencies, most of the bishops, almost all of the so-called “church colleges,” and most of the seminaries. This is why the bishops are scared to death to agree with the Commission on the Way Forward’s recommendation for a gracious exit. If we would like to believe that agape love is what we have in common, then can it not be argued that in agape love we offer freedom to one another. That, to be interpreted, would be something like amicable separation.
The idea that the church “increasingly tells people how to run their lives” is an interesting critique to hear. Especially as, if I understand your comment properly, you are claiming that it is the evangelicals who are being told how to run their lives?
Hasn’t the Church always told members how to run their lives? Isn’t that pretty much a major point? And isn’t this pretty much the major point of contention–whether the UMC’s requirements for LGBT members’ lives meets justice and mercy or not? I don’t know enough about evangelical United Methodists in the US to dispute the claim with you. But it is curious to hear someone who appears to be on the more conservative side of the spectrum complain about the church’s demands on people’s lives. (Apologies if I have misunderstood or misrepresented your own views and position.)
My perspective is the opposite: As someone who grew up in the UMC post-1972 and is LGBT, I’ve always been told how to live my life. Whether that was through GC decisions or more subtle social pressures at the congregational level. In fact, I was isolated from even knowing who and what I actually am because my UMC was in a rather socially secluded part of the world. It wasn’t talked about. There was no way for me to think of myself as anything other than a freak, and no feeling that I could entrust my feelings or myself to the local congregational leadership. When I needed help, the response of the UMC that I encountered was a collective “meh.”
Now that I am aware that what I always was is pansexual and trans, the attempts at control within my own denomination are no less nor gentler. In fact, as someone who is trans, I am often forgotten in the debates about gay clergy anyway. (Although sometimes given the vitriol, I can’t help but feel this is for the best.) It’s taken me a long time to come to grips with myself. It has been a long, hard path. The church has helped me precisely nowhere on this path, rather it has entirely been a hindrance. Either through apathy or antipathy. Nor are my silent struggles my own. I am merely one of many LGBT United Methodists who have been let down by the denomination, and who are being “told how to run our lives.” When the Church has had no interest in the fullness of our lives, only in those parts that it can try to control or fit into neat little boxes. Yet we still remain because it is our church, too.
It may be that many evangelical United Methodists are interested in nothing more than giving over control of the UMC apparatus to progressives and living in peace. Forgive me if I’m skeptical of such claims. The Traditionalist plan certainly has no interest in such things. Few people if any have ever willingly given up any scrap of power they have. But maybe the delegates will surprise me. That would truly be nice.
I read all of your articles with great interest Jeremy and would love to meet you over coffee/pie at St. Louis if possible. I find myself bogged down as a centrist who is being forced to go left or go right. I need to also say that I am saddened by accusations on both sides. Grieving for the church that means so much to me occupies far too much of my time. Serving in my present capacity, I am in touch with far more pastors/administrators/conference officials than ever. All share concern and acknowledge there will be change. I don’t have a vote at GC but will be an observer trusting that God will move us onward in new ways. I will return to my position determined to serve the God of love, mercy and grace.
If a church chooses to leave the UMC, then why should that church retain ANY voting rights in the UMC? Should Baptists have voting rights in the UMC? Should the Pope?????
And, if the Simple Plan becomes UMC policy and conservative churches leave, would you advocate that those churches retain voting rights in the UMC?
It makes perfect sense to exclude churches who leave from deciding UMC policy. The Traditionalist plan allows churches to leave the UMC with property, etc, to form a new and different denomination that suits them better. That is a fair exit for churches that wish to no longer belong.
You fail to employ logic or intellectual integrity in almost every statement and post you submit.
Did the Baptists help build the UMC? Did the Pope? Did you actually read what was written?
It is not valid or helpful to “cry over spilled milk”; claiming that I deserve a stake in something that I was once a part of but no longer am. I once got let go from a job. I didn’t mope because a company (that I helped build) let me go; I simply accepted that a relationship that had once been mutually beneficial no longer was. I looked to the future and had a great career because of that. The more you lament what has been lost, the less chance you have to succeed in the future.
More to the point in this fracture, “traditionalists” (WCA, etc.) simply want to move on with their lives and spirituality as they know it, should they depart. I do not believe any traditionalist groups are asking to continue a voting presence in the UMC after potential separation from the Church.
So tell me, why would the “progressives” want that? In my mind, it would be to assert control over others and to continue to claim victim status. I hope you can give me a different and legitimate reason.
I truly hope you respond as I enjoy the different perspectives on this as I try to develop my reactions to this issue.
Did you happen to notice that other Methodists retain delegates in GC? That was kind of the entire point of this blogpost. What happens in a post-Traditionalist plan GC? You’re also assuming that the Traditionalist plan will lead to an “amicable divorce.” But that’s not a foregone conclusion. Many progressives want to stay, even stay together, but the Traditionalist plan will force them out.
There’s a lot more nuance than “spilled milk.”
Whoever leaves loses their votes, whether traditionalist or progressives. I understand and think that is totally fair. Can we agree on that?
It seems that the traditionalists are saying that if the UMC moves in the progressive direction, they will peacefully leave and start a new denomination, knowing that removes their voting rights. That seems like an amicable divorce.
On the other hand, you say that progressives will not peacefully leave if the UMC moves in the traditional direction. Thus the progressives are not agreeable to an amicable divorce. My question remains… Why? Do you think progressives can control traditionalists’ beliefs?
I can only deduce that the traditionalists are the reasonable party in this “divorce”. Can you tell me where I am wrong?
Thanks
Yes, Dave. You’re wrong in that Progressives don’t want to split up the denomination. We don’t want to “leave.” We would be forced out under the Traditionalist Plan one way or another. I don’t know why you think what is happening is amicable. What could have possibly given you that idea? Does any of this feel amicable to you?
I also don’t know where you got the idea that traditionalists will “peacefully” leave. You can look at some of the older blogposts here about the “peaceful” methods that are being employed and/or encouraged by organizations such as the WCA.
Frankly, I can only conclude that you either really don’t know about all the politicking that is going on, or you are purposefully playing dumb. If it’s the first, then please read some more from various sources and try to cut back a bit on the loaded language. If it’s the second, then I have nothing more to say.
So your thought process is this…
Traditionalists are sneaky, deceitful and vindictive; thus I will make it my mission to stick around to make their lives miserable.
Very Christ-like indeed.
Nope. Clearly you’re neither reading what I wrote nor participating in good faith. Good bye.
One of your key points is well taken. Traditionalists ignore the spectrum of perspectives on human sexuality among their own congregations. A ‘graceful’ exit for progressives does not ensure survival of a more conservative UMC. If anything, it will hasten it’s demise as it continues to inflict harm on its own people.
If a conservative UMC post-GC destroys itself due to its discrimination then you should feel vindicated and pleased that such an organization is gone. Will you?
Do you really think we get off on schadenfreude?
At least the purpose of your comments are now pretty clear.
Good day.
I still feel the pain of the many years I spent in bars feeling that was the only place I was accepted. I had never been told that God loved me just as I am even though it was not as a “traditional” person. How many of His children have be thrown into the ocean to drown? Now as a member of a small congregation, I still wonder if the official church will love me as I am.
I know that pain all too well.
Whatever the UMC decides, at least know that another LGBT United Methodist loves you.
If a conservative UMC post-GC destroys itself due to its discrimination then you should feel vindicated and pleased that such an organization is gone. Will you?
Given how frequently and stridently Traditionalists are pushing the phrase “amicable divorce,” I can only conclude that they are either trying to salve their own consciences for the hurt and pain they’ve already caused (or allowed to happen) and their attempt at a blatant, un-Christlike power grab, or they are trying to convince themselves of something they know is untrue.
Or, I guess they’re gaslighting progressives and LGBT folks. That wouldn’t be anything new, either.
And why do care about their motives? Deal in reality… The UMC will break apart one way or the other. Look forward to a future without the strife whether the name of your church is UMC or something else.
BTW contrary to your assumptions of me, I personally think it was stupid for the UMC to in include the exclusive language 50 years ago. Struggle over that issue divided my UMC church and drove it to close. That issue has separated the Church from its mission of spiritual growth and I no longer attend a UMC church.
The larger issue now is to let the separation happen in a fair and non- vindictive manner. Many posts I see are full of hatred and hypocrisy. I view many sites dealing with the UMC issue and the venom is more prevalent on progressive websites. That is shameful. The past is past, now go live a good life without seeking to punish others even though you think them evil.
I have to wonder what kind of ethical system you subscribe to where motives are irrelevant and unconnected to reality. But apparently MY motives are up for debate according to your last sentence. Speak of hypocrisy…
If people are so interested in a fair and non-vindictive separation, then they would be pushing for the connectional plan. But they’re not. That should tell you something.
Good bye.
The Connectional Plan (and One Church Plan) allows segments of the UMC to continue discrimination. Not at all an acceptable solution.
Good bye for sure.
Oh, Boo Hoo! What a bunch if whiners.