by Dr. Jerry Kulah

Introduction

A fortnight ago, the worldwide United Methodist Church (UMC) concluded its postponed 2020 General Conference, held in Charlotte, North Carolina, from 23 April to 3 May 2024. The General Conference is the quadrennial gathering of delegates representing annual conferences of the UMC from around the globe, including a few concordat conferences with which it has partnership relationship. They meet to discuss the mission and ministry of the church and vote on critical issues that would have the propensity to influence the spiritual health and numerical growth of the church, whether negatively or positively. From every indication, as this article elucidates, the predominantly liberal and progressive delegates and leadership of the UMC at the just ended General Conference did everything they could to undo the Church’s teaching on marriage and human sexuality of the past 52 years. The worldwide UMC is now a liberal denomination that has officially legalized same-gender marriage, the ordination of LGBTQIA+ persons as pastors, and the election and consecration of gays and lesbians as bishops within the general church.

From the perspective of the majority of African delegates who attended the conference, the predominantly liberal and progressive leadership of the church had conducted the postponed 2020 General Conference among themselves prior to its official convening on 23 April. Upon our arrival at the seat of the General Conference at the Charlotte Convention Center, the Commission on the General Conference and its staff filled the entire city of Charlotte with banners bearing “Be UMC.” The packets for keys to delegates’ hotel rooms bore the hash tag, “Be UMC,” the souvenir bags given to every delegate to the General Conference also carried the same campaign label- something unprecedented at any prior General Conference.

Worse still, unlike any previous General Conference, the Commission on the General Conference and its staff insisted that they would purchase tickets for all delegates attending the General Conference. Furthermore, they insisted that all Central Conference delegates arrive on 18 April and begin three days of pre-general conference orientation the following day. No earlier arrivals were allowed. As difficult, frustrating, and punishing as the process was for African delegates who had to travel for about 26-30 hours from their various destinations into Charlotte, the Commission on the General Conference and its staff refused to respond to our appeal for a reconsideration of their decisions.

Regrettably, however, upon our arrival, they had no pre-General Conference training organized for Central Conference delegates. Instead, they took us on a campaign trail of their liberal and progressive agenda for the General Conference. We felt like the Commission on the General Conference and its staff were treating us as if we were their stooges that must submit to their agenda they had prepared in advance for the General Conference. What they presented to Central Conference delegates as pre-General Conference orientation included the Regionalization Plan as structured by the Connectional Table of the UMC for consideration by the General Conference. Following that, they presented the new pension plan of the UMC, structured by Wespath, the financial institution responsible for UMC Clergy Pension. Next, they presented the new Social Principles, published in 2020 by the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) that legalizes same-gender marriage, the ordination of LGBTQIA+ persons, and the election and consecration of gays and lesbians as bishops of the Church. They concluded the so-called pre-General Conference orientation with a repeat of a presentation on the new quadrennial budget that the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA) had previously presented to Central Conference delegates through a webinar session a couple of weeks prior.  Following each presentation, the Commission and its staff provided pencils and sheets of paper to the Central Conference delegates to discuss the presentation and ask questions.

Realizing that the entire plan by the Commission on the General Conference and its staff to conduct a pre-General Conference for Central Conference delegates was a scheme to sell their agenda for the General Conference and receive feedback, some of us revolted against their actions. We reminded them of our expectations of activities for pre-General Conference orientation, consistent with previous General Conferences, including principles and practices of the “Robert’s Rules” that are used to govern plenary sessions of the General Conference. They refused to listen to us. We further reminded them that they were in error by presenting to us legislations and petitions for our feedback that were properly before the 2020 postponed General Conference for delegates to discuss, debate, and vote upon in legislative sessions during the first week of General Conference, and hence, that their action was premature, unfair, and unacceptable. Despite our revolt, the Commission and its staff remained adamant about fulfilling their manipulative plans without any redress to our concerns expressed. Consequently, we received no orientation. They succeeded in wasting our precious time that would have been well spent in overcoming jetlag. 

At the official commencement of the General Conference on 23 April, the Commission on the General Conference and its staff, along with the various liberal, progressive, and centrist caucuses of the UMC, confirmed our suspicions about their deciding beforehand the outcomes of the General Conference. During the actual conference, they planned and tele-guarded the agenda of the General Conference to achieve their predetermined goal of liberalizing the church. Given that the Commission on the General Conference and its staff had denied about 70-100 official African delegates’ attendance, also being cognizant of the fact that almost all American UMC conservative members and delegates had left the UMC, we already knew that the liberal and progressive delegates would outnumber those of us who are conservatives.

Of the about 750 out of 862 official delegates that made it to the General Conference, the liberal, progressive and centrist delegates consisted of about 600. This number included some African delegates who were under duress by their progressively leaning bishops to support the regionalization plan of the liberals as well as the Social Principles that would change the language of the Book of Discipline in favor of their LBGTQIA+ agenda for the church. Additionally, some new African delegates did not have a good understanding of the process. Expressions such as “amendment, amendment to the amendment of the main motion, friendly amendment, point of inquiry” etc., were very strange to them.  Consequently, they became confused and could not participate in the plenary sessions adequately, including their ability to vote. Had the Commission on the General Conference taken the time to provide the needed orientation to Central Conference delegates instead of allotting it to their “Be UMC” campaign, they would have helped some of the African delegates who were appearing at the General Conference for the first time.

Despite all their manipulations, our primary objective was to ensure that the General Conference heard the conservative and biblically committed voice of the UMC in Africa, but they did everything to silence us. Unlike previous General Conferences, the Commission on the General Conference and its staff, with the acquiescence of the presiding bishops, denied us any moment of privilege to express ourselves on the floor of the General Conference. They formulated a new rule that demanded delegates to write out any expressions they wanted to make and pass them on to a special committee. This committee would review and submit it to the General Conference Secretary so that he would give to the presiding bishop what they felt the writer wanted to say to the General Conference. Occasionally, some presiding bishops would interrupt and intimidate us when we attempted to air our opinions on some critical matters on the floor of the General Conference. What a General Conference this was!

Another sad experience of the recent General Conference was the refusal of its leadership to listen to our plea to give delegates their daily stipends for food, instead of cooking for everyone, given our cultural diversity. They refused. Many of the African delegates could not eat the American-style food provided to them. One delegate even cried on the floor of the General Conference that he was suffering because he had not eaten since his arrival at the General Conference. His cry went unnoticed.  To crown the assault we suffered, the outgoing President of the Council of Bishops who preached the opening worship service told us, conservatives, that we were not welcome if we did not join their liberal train that was now directing the affairs of the worldwide denomination. Shocking!

Conclusion

Inevitably, members of the liberal and progressive wing of the UMC have gotten what they had craved over the past 52 years, however, not without perilous consequences. That is, to turn the worldwide UMC into a denomination that rejects biblical orthodoxy and that subjugates the teachings of the infallible Word of God to Western Cultural Christianity. They achieved their goal by passing the regionalization plan, removing the biblical restrictive rules from the Book of Discipline, including the statement that “homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings,” and revising the Social Principles. They are now promoting ratification of their regionalization plan as a solution for the clear disparities between United Methodism in Africa and the United Methodism now practiced in the United States and Europe. Each region, they argue, can have its own rules. But the proposed regionalization makes Africa complicit in the progressive direction of the entire denomination. Bishops are general superintendents of the whole church. Regionalization requires Africa to accept the two openly LGBTQ bishops that have already been elected in the USA and the others that are sure to follow. The Revised Social Principles, the new statements that no longer describe marriage in the union of a man and woman exclusively, are statements on behalf of the entire UMC. The United Methodist Social Principles cannot be regionalized. A sin is a sin, regardless of geography.

As a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal by Professor Carl Trueman of Grove City College states, “For all the pious language, the UMC’s decision doesn’t represent a commitment to Christian orthodoxy. It is an affirmation of current middle-class sensibilities. The church shies away from the logic of its own position—a logic that would lead to the legitimation of any sexual act or arrangement as long as it concerns consenting adults. In short, it has chosen to embrace the liberal Protestant specialty: baptizing the dominant values it sees as informing the culture, no more, no less.”

This Western Cultural Christianity is selective of what it chooses to believe and what it chooses not to believe, as the Word of God. It redefines marriage from the biblical picture of a covenant relationship between a man and a woman to a union between any two consenting adults, to promote its LBGTQIA+ agenda, same-gender marriage, and the ordination and consecration of gays and lesbians.

Admittedly, this is not the kind of Christianity that the early missionaries birthed in Africa and that Africans embraced. The majority of the African church does not ascribe to this kind of Christianity. While most parts of the Euro-Western UMC have become liberal and progressive, we commit to remaining biblically committed, Christ-centered, and Holy Spirit-empowered toward the evangelization of the nations, the revitalization of the church, and the transformation of society.

Therefore, we emphatically declare to all that the church in Africa in general and the UMC in Africa in particular, is not for sale to the Euro-Western liberal and progressive agenda. We cannot and will not sell the church in Africa to any brand of Western Christianity that rejects the gospel of Jesus Christ for another gospel that is no gospel at all (Galatians 1:6-9). We will not deny Christ and his liberating gospel. This gospel, rather than baptizing what the Bible calls sin, preaches a repentance and faith in Jesus Christ that alone saves. This gospel is redeeming souls all across Africa in no small measure. When it becomes necessary to decide between submitting to the liberal agenda of Western Christianity and our commitment to biblical Christianity, we will choose the latter, because Jesus is our Savior and Lord. With God above our rights to prove, we shall prevail over principalities and powers, financial inadequacy, and any form of dependency currently plaguing the African church. The church in Africa will continue to progress in triumphant victory as we make disciples of Jesus Christ for the holistic transformation of the world. To God be the glory.

Rev. Dr. Jerry P. Kulah

General Coordinator, Africa Initiative

Jerry P. Kulah is Vice President of the School of Graduate and Professional Studies, United Methodist University in Monrovia, Liberia. He is also the General Coordinator of the UMC Africa Initiative.

Photo Credit