Petitions In. Now What?
Another milestone has passed for The United Methodist Church. Petitions to change the Book of Discipline, our book of doctrine and polity, were due September 18th. Done and done!
That means that the most legitimate, well-crafted ideas will be in the pre-published ADCA come February for consideration by the May 2020 General Conference in Minneapolis. These petitions will be translated and interpreted in the four UMC languages, and so these petitions will have the most weight when it comes to discernment.
So. Now what?
Trickle of Plans and Proposals
These petitions are not public yet except by self-disclosure by the submitters. Over the coming months, revelations of what petitions were submitted will start trickling out. Some we know about (see this helpful roundup by Rev. Becca Girrell in the New England annual conference), and some are yet to be revealed.
I was part of a team that will not be revealing our work until later this Fall because the messaging around these complex legislative ideas needs to be finalized. If we are doing it, then we know other groups are too.
These are all unofficial groups or individuals doing the promotion and discussion: unlike 2019, there is no standard plan (or plans…sigh) proposed by the UMC powers-that-be. The closest one is the Connectional Table’s proposal to fix the inequality in the system (see here) by creating a Regional Conference in The USA. While helpful, its timeline is too slow for effective rallying of a majority vote (unless the legislation changed from what I saw), but support of it has been rolled into other plans such as UMC Next.
In the coming months, look for more analysis of the emerging plans as their proposals are revealed as actual petitions—and this blog will be one of the better places to take deep dives into these complex conversations.
The Starving of United Methodism…
The months since General Conference 2019 have seen a drop in enthusiasm and a drop in giving about The United Methodist Church, especially by Traditionalists and conservative regions.
Wespath (friend of the blog) and GCFA have been giving “GC 2020 Scenarios and Contingencies” presentations which detail that the reduced collection rates for apportionments (church tithes to common denominational structures) have fallen since the 2019 General Conference to a level even below the collection rate after the 2008 Recession.
- The World Service Fund, which funds global missions and many General Agencies, dropped almost 10%, an unheard-of drop in recent history.
- The Episcopal Fund (which pays for the Bishops, staff, and other Episcopal-related expenses) operates at a deficit already, and if reduced collection rates continue, will run out of money in 2023 “assuming no churches leave the denomination.” Good luck with that assumption!
While collection rates fluctuate, the rapid drop is undeniable and points directly to the effect the 2019 General Conference Traditional Plan has had on the denomination.
It’s important to note that this reduced support of common structures has been part and parcel of Traditionalist efforts over the years to withhold apportionments and call for reduced funding of common structures. These Traditionalists have now been given cover as progressive and Centrists express their unrest since GC2019. And the Wesleyan Covenant Association can rebrand their own members’ withholding and diversions as “Central Conference Support” going to an allegedly dedicated fund. Well done, marketing department!
Finally, this is the dream of renewal groups like the IRD who want a denomination that has starved its progressive social witness (which The UMC has despite Traditionalist obstinance on LGBTQ+ inclusion and recent setbacks in support of women) and that’s exactly what they got with the Traditional Plan and these reduced collection amounts. They’ve gotten the denomination to cease staffing up and expanding its social witness, and all without firing a shot.
In short, larger swaths of United Methodism are stifling missions and ministries by The United Methodist Church’s common structures. While the motivations behind it are mixed, the effects are clear, and reduced collections support Traditionalist goals rather than stifle them.
A Portent of 2020 Endgame?
Just as large swaths of Methodists (or just a few megachurches) are voting “no” to finances, so also might zero-sum strategists be considering voting “no” on legislation.
One strategy by the Traditionalists, who will have a slim majority at General Conference 2020 if the African central conferences vote in lockstep like in 2019, is a simple one: be a party of No. Vote down every proposal, vote down every plan, every amendment, every faithful offering of crafting a better life together. The Republicans in congress have been this party of No for 8 years of the Obama administration, and the Senate continues to be a party of No since January’s sweep of the House of Representatives.
This could be effective because some chatterers on Twitter believe that a lack of progress would trigger Progressives out of the denomination. By raising the toxicity in United Methodism and refusing to clean the tank, the pH balance could render it uninhabitable to inclusive life. As is outlined in the scenarios article, such an expulsion could be done without firing a shot or changing anything.
But such a strategy would not be of a lasting impact because the governance of the denomination will be a Centrist/Progressive majority. The sweep of entire annual conference delegations by Centrists and progressives will allow like-minded bishops and boards of directors to correct the Traditionalist tilt. No Traditionalist bishop will be elected in 2020 in the United States jurisdictions unless a Bishop Webb situation happens like it did in the NEJ.
Four years of such governance is more than enough to starve out the Traditionalists themselves, who react even more strongly to pearl-clutching. So while voting “No” is a short-term strategy, if progressives hold their line as well, Traditionalists will be the ones finding themselves leaking out.
So no matter what polity is passed or not passed at General Conference, the governance of the denomination is in progressive and centrist hands for the next four years. Traditionalists would be wise to negotiate life together or apart, not to stonewall any effort entirely, nor turn over their strategy to bad actors who seek to hollow out the denomination entirely.
Everyday is a winding road
I made a prediction to my local church: May 2020 will end The United Methodist Church as it is known now and begin to birth something new. Whether a more just unity, dissolution, division, or expulsion to something apart is in our future, the Church will not be the same.
Every turn of this winding road confirms my prediction, but there are many barriers to something new. Not only a lack of a majority behind a direction (even Africa’s bishops are against the WCA-preferred/authored plans for division or dissolution), but United Methodists are said to be allergic to change. The institutional inertia to stay the course is hard to overcome or overthrow, for better or for worse.
But there is a strong spirit in the air in progressive and centrist circles: this crisis is a chance to do something new. Something more just. Something that encourages and turns the fundamentalist tide away that is crashing upon the shores of Methodism. While majority votes at General Conference will be hard to secure, the governance concerns may be more mixed as annual conferences and jurisdictions withstand the Traditionalist waves beating upon UMC shores.
We just don’t know what that is yet. And there are many months before May’s General Conference, so there will be many twists and turns yet. Take care of your churches and faith communities, and keep in communication with them…not sticking your head in the sand and divesting your voice from this conversation.
Your Turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
This is the first time I’ve read your blog. Thanks for your clear thinking, sober analysis and a mostly hopeful tone. I have been a UMC Elder for 33 years, serving 27 of those years in higher education as either a Wesley Foundation director or university chaplain. Contemplating the state of this current theological and (mostly) political impasse gives me a severe case of existential dizziness. I have been faithfully serving in extension ministry settings that have embraced total inclusion as a matter of faith, attitude and policy. The grave risk that not resolving, and reversing, the excessively punitive Traditionalist plan that goes into effect 1/1/2020 is acute with regard to our Methodist-related colleges, universities and seminaries who will be forced to disaffiliate due to Title IX and recruitment challenges. I’m not sure that even our progressive members understand, let alone give voice to, the implications to our greatest Methodist legacy in the US: higher education. Let’s start over by not describing our struggle as progressive vs. traditionalist, but as a choice between inclusion or exclusion. Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, Mark. Blessings!
Mark, I can certainly understand the difficulties being experienced at campus ministries, and I agree that much of what is being struggled over is choosing between inclusion or exclusion. Unfortunately, those favoring exclusion and discrimination are convinced that they’re right, and that it’s not something that they can “agree to disagree” on, despite the extreme harm that continues to be done to God’s children and to ministries such as yours. Have you tried putting these ideas in writing, so that it could be shared with those throughout the broken connection?
Jeremy,
As a progressive in our denomination I am ashamed because of people like you who continually fostering animosity based on conjecture without out supporting evidence. You state your personal feelings and perceptions by filling in gaps with unsubstantiated rhetoric. As one closer than you to the matter at had, I can assure you that many, if not most conservatives in our denomination are not seeking to say “no” to every piece of legislation and any possible amendments. Knowing this first hand makes it clear to me that you are a dangerous person. You have some accurate information, but fill in the blanks with defaming and deceitful lies that only perpetuate anger and
hate. Shame on you!
What is that you really want? What are your intentions? What are your goals? What are your hopes?
By the way, I have found great joy and a true sense of connectionalism throughout this ordeal and my hope is that progressives, centrist, and conservatives will experience the same.
Hi (Bishop?) I’m providing analysis on viewpoints and proposals for UM future. That includes naming dangerous proposals and articulating why they are dangerous (and nowhere did I claim this is the conservative strategy. I was naming it is one possible strategy that I then debunked its effectiveness). It’s okay to turn your rhetoric at me, I can handle that, but the purpose is to name the reality and share a story that gets us through it.
Thanks for your engagement.
Progressive? If you say so, but kindly elaborate as to how you are closer than Jeremy to the “matter at hand.” This isn’t a new outlet, and Jeremy isn’t a reporter. It’s a blog and typically, bloggers express their opinions and aren’t expected to adhere to journalistic standards, although this blog contains a lot more factual content and links to references than most. It’s pretty rude to accuse someone of deceit, especially someone you probably don’t know very well. I’m sure that Jeremy’s motivation is to share information that he considers important to his readers and to provide analysis of things in a way that makes people think about and engage with the issues being presented.
I’m happy that you have “found great joy and a true sense of connectionalism throughout this ordeal” but I hope you realize that the ordeal could have been avoided altogether had the traditionalists been willing to put aside their obsession with homosexuality and accept LGBTQ Christians and treat them equally, rather than as defective and “incompatible.” The constitutional amendments from the Task Force on the Worldwide Nature of the Church that would have created regional conferences to establish a uniform and fair denominational structure should have been passed, but the traditionalists killed those, and that’s a shame.
I hope you reconsider your harsh words and consider the possibility that Jeremy’s motives are from his heart and his love of the Church and all of the people we COULD be reaching were our hearts, minds, and doors truly open!
“… the ordeal could have been avoided altogether had the traditionalists been willing to put aside their obsession with homosexuality…”
Really? And how about the progressive obsession that would not follow the will of General Conference on this matter? From my perspective, it was a progressive church leadership who forged ahead with their perception of what the church should be while all the while ignoring the clear and consistent voice of traditionalists who said the One Church Plan will not work for traditionalists.
One thing that bumfuzzles is where do progressives get off believing that they are the only ones with the “correct answer”? On what basis would you have us adopt your understanding of the mission of God in the world, as opposed to the one put forward by countless generations of Christian teachers and leaders? Especially when you do not engage the issue from a theological perspective but only criticize those who simply disagree with you. To date what theological critique has come out of the progressive camp has been less than convincing if, for no other reason, than there is always an adequate traditionalist critique in return. You have your way to read the Bible, I have mine.
Just for the record, I do not believe you are somehow deficient just because you believe differently than me. I do not believe that you are on the short track to hell when you die because that is not my call to make. What I do believe is we will all face Jesus at his return and we will all learn where we have fallen short! But in the meantime, we do not agree on what it means to be a Christian of the Methodist/Wesleyan persuasion in this life. The only question that should be before is “What is the best way to remedy that problem in a way that respects all beliefs and the people who hold them.”
Thank you Joan and Amen!
Yes, “really.” Focusing on this one purported sin (and I challenge the status of committed same-sex relationships as sin, as do many with far more theological education than me) is a choice, considering all of the other sins that appear to be given a pass by conservatives. I’m sure you’ve seen this quote before: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” I’m not impressed by what “countless generations” have believed about just about anything, given how many things were accepted as fact by generations before they were proven wrong (flat earth, the Earth circling the Sun, Noah’s flood, taking the creation story literally, etc.). We cal all believe what we want to believe, but I have a lot of LGBTQ+ friends and I know that they’re not “incompatible” with God.
Hey David, So you defend Jeremy’s right to opine, but criticize Bishop’s right to opine. Wow, did you not know that along with the blogger, the responders are also entitled to share their opinions?
Oh well, just another tolerant and open-minded Progressive who absolutely loves to consider all aspects of an argument, as long as they match their own.
Hey Dave, it’s one thing to share an opinion on a topic, but accusing another of “defaming and deceitful lies” is indeed rude, especially without providing any examples. That’s far worse than your sarcasm, which I won’t criticize, even if I find it unwarranted in this instance.
“By the way, I have found great joy and a true sense of connectionalism throughout this ordeal …”
Many of us have not. There’s been a lot of pain out here.
“…and my hope is that progressives, centrist, and conservatives will experience the same.”
I’d like to experience that too. Instead, I feel broken – in some ways, I feel that Organized Religion (UMC in particular) has only pushed me farther from God. It’s even made me doubt Him.
“As one closer than you to the matter at [hand]…”
Maybe you’re too close, and not seeing the pain that’s being felt among the people.
You might want to consider all of this before you try to remove the speck in UMJeremy’s eye.
Just a thought.
Sadly, seems to me that the imminent divisions within the UMC have nothing to do with the human capacity to GROW SPIRITUALLY into higher spiritual heights, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, and, or demonstrate the Gifts of the Holy Spirit….including the Commandment of our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ that WE MUST LOVE GOD AND ONE ANOTHER. SO Which of the “plans” coming out has the most love in it? That’s the plan we all should choose to follow.
Rosemarie, thank you! I believe there may not be much love motivating the actions at GC. Fearfulness and defensiveness are frontrunners, as we are so unwilling to be vulnerable with each other. The hostility and vehemence at GC 2019 makes this rightly so. But it’s far from what the gospel calls us to. I watched in 2008 as the committee on Human Sexuality wordsmithed and crafted an eloquent and beautiful statement, accepted as the majority report, and was shot down so readily by the minority report’s acceptance at plenary. I agree that the system is in ashes, but what will rise from those ashes is the big unknown. Waiting…….
Hey David, So you defend Jeremy’s right to opine, but criticize Bishop’s right to opine. Wow, did you not know that along with the blogger, the responders are also entitled to share their opinions?
Oh well, just another tolerant and open-minded Progressive who absolutely loves to consider all aspects of an argument, as long as they match their own.
(please see my response to your identical comment above)
The 10 largest Protestant churches in the 9 states of the Western Jurisdiction are all traditional in theology, innovative with multiple styles of worship, aggressively engaged in community needs, and neither bless gay weddings nor fixate on that issue one way or another. Some affirm women clergy and aren’t bewailing evolution. Most have a level of racial/ethnic diversity that typical UM churches lack. Those 10 churches, according to the Hartford Center, draw nearly 20,000 more worshippers each week than all 1,661 United Methodists churches in the entire jurisdiction. And I am certain none of the pastors of those 10 churches are pouring energy into bickering over politics and control of a denomination that is in 51 years of consistent decline. Wesleyan expressions of evangelical theology are functionally excluded from consideration or support by the existing system. Inclusion, openness and welcome to authentically diverse Wesleyan views could make an incredible difference, but not if the focus is on fighting. Cal-Nevada has declined to 4 churches with more than 300 in weekly worship…serving a population base of 16million+ and already ignores official teaching on gay marriage, ordination, etc. Neither sexuality, nor conservatives, nor liberals are the big issue. A total reboot is the need.
My Church here in Atlanta (St Mark) became very successful when it welcomed LGBT persons. Urban Village in Chicago is another example. It is all a matter of marketing.