-By Rev. Dr. Christopher M. Ritter
Since my proposal for finding amicable unity in The United Methodist Church went public, the question I receive most often has to do with the concept of overlapping jurisdictions and annual conferences. In the Jurisdictional Solution, both a progressive and traditionalist jurisdiction would stretch from coast to coast in the U.S. with their own network of annual conferences and episcopal areas. This is evidently difficult for many to visualize. Let me try to help.
Visit with me the Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference. Despite its name, it actually covers not only Oklahoma but also parts of Missouri, Kansas, and North Texas. It is a conference of over 80 churches that are organized to address the spiritual needs Native Americans. The Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference overlaps with several other annual conferences. So, not every United Methodist Church in Oklahoma is accountable to the Oklahoma Annual Conference. The Native American congregations and pastors have their own thing going. Can you picture it?
Now, let’s apply this concept to the U.S. Southeast. The United Methodist conferences there are, by reputation, a bit more conservative. Imagine with me, for the sake of argument, that these conferences opt to go with the more traditionalist jurisdiction. Their conference boundaries would remain relatively unchanged. Superimpose over those conferences a separate conference of progressive churches and pastors who, for conscience sake, could not go the direction of their annual conference. These churches would have a separate bishop and their own rules about same sex weddings and practicing homosexuals being ordained. They would be a United Methodist progressive conference operating in the U.S. Southeast.
Now let’s go West. The annual conferences there are, by reputation, a bit more liberal. Under the Jurisdictional Plan, their conference boundaries would be relatively unaffected. Picture a map of these Western Annual Conferences. Now, superimpose over that map a more conservative annual conference consisting of those churches and pastors who could not accept the vote of their respective conferences to be aligned with the more progressive jurisdiction. This geographically larger annual conference would overlap the others, have its own bishop, and do ministry out of their convictions regarding scripture and ministry. They would be a United Methodist traditionalist conference operating in the U.S. West.
Now let’s go to the middle of the nation. United Methodist Conferences are somewhat mixed here. In my home state of Illinois, the Northern Illinois Conference is, by reputation, a bit liberal. The other conference in the state, Illinois Great Rivers, is moderate and trends to the conservative side as you go south. Let’s say, for the sake of example, that the Northern Illinois Conference votes to go with the progressive jurisdiction and the IGRC votes to go with the more traditionalist jurisdiction. You would end up, perhaps, with a map where both conferences cover the entire state. The IGRC would create a district map that would include Chicago and Northern Illinois. The NIC would stretch their district map to include those IGRC congregations that dissented from their conference vote. (Their southern-most district might end up covering a lot of acreage). There would be two conferences covering the entire state with two separate bishops.
If the Jurisdictional Solution was implemented, I would not expect to see is a large overall increase in the number of annual conferences. Most, I would expect, would be built on the chassis of another conference. I would also not expect the conferences to become ideologically extreme. Each conference would have churches and pastors that chose to stay in spite of the fact that they voted with the minority. There will be many churches and pastors that elect to “decide not to decide” and go the direction of their conference for the sake of convenience or continuity. These will be moderating voices in conferences of both jurisdictions.
This whole process of voting, redrawing maps, and adjusting districts would not be painless or simple. The advantage of this plan is that it provides for a one-time vote of each annual conference instead of open-ended battle in each congregation and annual conference over weddings and ordinations. Those with strong feelings have a way to remain United Methodists. Once reorganized, each annual conference can get on with the business of ministry in keeping with their vision of scripture. It also retains The United Methodist Church as a body that has avoided full schism through strategic compromise. If there is a better idea out there, I am listening. Let me know your thoughts.
People Need Jesus 
How does anyone explain this ‘compromise’ to their congregations? How does this solve anything if one church or several churches is or are in a cooperative relationship and half go progressive and half choose traditional? It seems that what is being suggested is overwhelmingly confusing and would take years and years to sort implement and sort out. How many Annual Conferences? How many resolutions from those Annual Conferences? How many General Conferences would it take work out all of the intricacies of implementing such a plan as you are suggesting? Then when the time comes to rewrite the Constitution,Social Principles, form the necessary committee’s and so on? Does each one of these newly aligned ‘progressive’ and ‘traditional’ jurisdictions have their own Book of Discipline? Their own Constitution? Social Principles? Personally, its to complex!
It represents too great an upheaval that would take too long to fully unravel.
Thanks, Thomas. I agree there are many ramifications and intricacies for a denomination that is as connected as us. I encourage you to go back through the last few posts for some of this, but here is a recap:
1) General Conference 2016 votes to amend the constitution and create two non-geographic U.S. Jurisdictions. Ordination standards and detailed social principles are relegated to these jurisdictions.
2) The constitutional amendments need to be ratified at our annual conferences in 2017.
3) At annual conferences in 2018, there would be a crucial vote at each annual conference to choose the jurisdiction with which that annual conference will align. Property and assets go with the majority.
4) Local congregations would have until a date in 2019 to indicate that they desire to go a different direction than their conference. They would go on a list for the other jurisdiction to include in the remapping of their conferences.
5) Bishops would choose a jurisdiction with which to align.
6) Clergy who are dissent from their conference’s jurisdictional alignment would be relocated with the help of their new jurisdiction.
7) Each jurisdiction meets to organize their conferences and clergy for mission.
Quick responses to your other questions:
If we get consensus before General Conference with the leadership of our bishops, we can do the main work in 2016 and fine-tune any lingering issues in 2020.
We would have only One Book of Discipline.
Each Jurisdiction would have their own adaptation of the Social Principles just like our Central Conferences currently do. The Book of Discipline Social Principles might be reduced to something similar to our Current Preamble to the Social Principles.
There would be one constitution and one United Methodist Church.
As with now, there would be Central conferences overseas with their own set of rules.
As to charge realignment, if a pastoral charge doesn’t agree with how to apply scripture to ministry they probably don’t need to be yoked together to begin with.
To me, the biggest risk to the church is that we would get to 2020 and still be fighting the same old battles and trying to do ministry the name old way with the same old results. I would much rather be trying to fine-tune the new approach in six years than trying to work with what we all know does not serve the mission.
I really appreciate people like you who study our options and take the time to give feedback. This helps move us forward.
I am still waiting for someone to give me a better model. If you come up with a better way forward, I will gladly help you promote it. Blessings on your ministry.