by Chris Ritter
In my last post I shared my belief that the Commission on a Way Forward is working on a large-scale restructure plan as it seeks to address divisions in our church over the interpretation and application of Scripture. The Council of Bishops (COB) has allotted significant time to hearing from The Commission at their November meeting. A final commission report would need to be adopted by them at their May 2018 meeting so that the enabling legislation can arrive in the hands of delegates to the called UM General Conference (February 2019) by the summer 2018 deadline.
What I didn’t share last time is my considerable doubt that our Council of Bishops (as it is currently constituted) will be capable of bringing a plan that General Conference (as it is currently constituted) would be willing to approve. By the admission of its own members, our COB is divided to the point of dysfunction. Loose agreement is found only in a desire to maintain some semblance of the status quo. Many new structural visions currently being discussed will require super-majority support both from our global legislative body and each annual conference. If the interplay of all these forces works out like I think it might, optimism should be mitigated for our bishops producing a plan that can gain the required consensus.
This is not my wish, only a pragmatic assessment. Like the rest of the church, I am in prayer. All things are possible with God.
General Conference Taking the Lead
In this post I want to shine the light on General Conference as a key player in the future direction of the UMC. A global body, General Conference is somewhat immune to the anxiety infecting the American Church over same-sex marriage. The odds of GC2019 overturning or softening our positions on human sexuality are quite remote. In fact, committee voting at GC 2016 demonstrated that global consensus is taking the body in quite the opposite direction. This trend will become more pronounced every four years as delegation sizes shift from declining progressive conferences to the growing conferences outside the U.S.
But what can be done by General Conference should it reject the plan brought by our bishops? The limitations of General Conference are well-known. It normally meets only once every four years… not nearly enough to provide any sort of meaningful management to the operations of our denomination. General Conference is dependent upon the executive branch of our church to enforce what it passes. Many bishops have now clearly demonstrated they are unwilling to do this. (Only look at the fact that all conferences currently in schism are served by bishops who disagree with the Book of Discipline.) General Conference is a senate without troops.
But General Conference remains the only body that can speak for the United Methodist Church. Once the special General Conference is seated it can entertain business outside its stated call (if it agrees to do so by a 2/3 vote as stipulated in ¶14). And it does actually have levers it can pull to guide the denominational ship independently of our bishops. In the past, denominational disobedience happened on the level of the individual clergy. Iron-clad due-process protections put the resolution of these matters into the hands of our bishops who have any number of ways to dismiss complaints against defiant clergy. However, the game changed last year when denominational disobedience rose to the plenary annual conference level. General Conference can now open a whole new toolbox of accountability measures that does not involve our bishops.
It turns out that annual conferences, unlike clergy, are not guaranteed complex levels of due process. The General Council on Finance and Administration (the technical employer of our bishops) is directly accountable to General Conference alone (¶804). If you follow the money, it leads both to and from GCFA. This is also the body that decides who gets to use the United Methodist name and insignia.
What General Conference Can Do
General Conference can mandate that conferences affirm their fidelity to our covenant in order to continue to be part of it. For instance, GC could mandate that each annual conference in the connection adopt one of two statements in, say, the year 2020. One statement would indicate that the UMC’s positions on ministry (in ¶ 304 “Qualifications for Ordination”, ¶341 “Unauthorized Conduct”, and ¶2702 “Chargeable Offenses”) are acceptable and will be upheld in that annual conference and its subsidiary units. The other statement would indicate that the annual conference has principled moral objection with the ministry standards of the UMC and cannot uphold them.
GCFA would be instructed to certify the responses to the two statements mentioned above. Those conferences who return anything other than the pledge of covenantal faithfulness (or who refuse to respond) would be placed under a sort of financial quarantine by GCFA… meaning that money could not be received from them or sent to them. GCFA would also be instructed to withhold usage of the Cross and Flame and United Methodist name by these conferences.
Bishops, likewise, would be given the opportunity to sign a statement pledging their support to the ministry standards of the UMC or their objection to them. Bishops refusing to affirm UMC standards would no longer receive a salary from The United Methodist Church.
I believe a new form of unity is required, and this type of accountability will help motivate disobedient bishops and conferences to more actively seek it. Such a self-sorting is key to producing a lasting peace. When a United Methodist clergy or congregation decide that performing same-sex marriage is an essential part of their ministry, we can avoid trials by establishing a new sort of relationship with them. The trials should stop.
Opting for the Do-able
As an audit-able adherent to our Discipline, I believe that GCFA can be counted upon to follow the clear directives of General Conference. Their authority to manage the budget could be expanded for a few years so they can adequately respond to financial fluctuations that might occur while transitions take place. The legislation needed to enact meaningful accountability is minimal, straightforward, and requires no constitutional amendments. Passage of measures like these will send a strong signal that that the decades-long legislative game of cat and mouse is over and it is time for us all to move into a new day.
Photo credit: CRK Training
People Need Jesus 
Sounds like a solution worth pursuing to me. Well done!
Two thoughts. First, all US Conferences are declining in membership, not just the so called progressive Conferences. Second, the chances of 2/3 of delegates to the 2019 Conference suspending the rules are close to zero.
Thanks for reading and commenting John. Your first point is true and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. There is a bit of a correlation between a more Progressive approach and slightly escalated decline. If the main proposal fails at GC2019, the options will be go home or allow other proposals to come forward. It also is unclear how widely the chairs will interpret the call. There is also GC 2020 the very next year where any legislation can be submitted. It will be fascinating to see how things play out over the next 18 months.
This gives me hope. Thank you.
This solution is possible if the GC so says. The GC must be ready for pushback in the form of demonstrations demouncements denials, and disobedience. The Council of Bishops must be ready to sensure disobedient bishops and to change them to undesirable positions until acquiescence.
Are we ready?
Thanks for reading and commenting, Bill. The four D’s you cite are already a standard part of General Conference. I don’t see the Council of Bishops becoming a reforming agent anytime in the near future.
What happens if the GCFA board, General Secretary & Treasurer, Associate and/or assistant directors disagree with the General Conference’s directive, and refuse to follow through on it or prolong it needlessly to the point it is irrelevant?
Thanks for readings and commenting, Dave. I am really hoping it doesn’t come to this. Unlike our bishops, GCFA is directly accountable to General Conference. Of course, there are no guarantees. However, money people are trained to follow the guidelines they are given. They submit to audits and insure proper procedures are being followed. Very specific legislation with a timeline would minimize opportunities for gamesmanship. Maybe the most important thing would be the strong signal that General Conference has the will enforce UM standards and end the disobedience.
Thanks for replying. Sorry for the late reply. I just saw your reply to my reply. I thought I had set it up to let me know when new remarks were made.
I hope it does not get to that point either, but I think it is heading that way. I understand GCFA is directly accountable to the GC, but the GC only meets once every four years. Isn’t it the elected boards and hired/appointed executives of the General Boards and Agencies who are the representatives of the GC, responsible for the implementation of the GC’s mandates, and responsible for the daily activities of the boards and agencies? In other words how is being directly accountable to the General Conference going to impact GCFA, or any board or agency for that matter, if they are the ones responsible for implementing and running the General Conference mandates and policies?
What I have observed and learned through the years is that even with specific timelines and policies there are ways to slow down the process. I would imagine any action, regardless of how narrow and direct the legislation would be written and passed, would take a minimum of a year at least to be resolved due to Judicial Council involvement because you know there will someone asking for clarification or objecting to the disciplinary action. Even a year may be too short of a time by the time someone asks for a reconsideration. While it irks me, most of the time I am able to say that is the process, and it is a good thing, at least most of the time. A whole lot of it will depend upon the will of the bishops who lead the boards and agencies, the executives, and even the boards themselves.
Money people may be taught to follow the guidelines, but even then there is often gamemanship. An example would be the offering of health insurance to domestic partners/same sex marriage partners, and having at least part of the cost whether it is administative or premium payment by different groups within the UMC. Apparently that does not fall under the rule of promoting same sex causes or relationships. I would have to research it, but I think GCFA okayed this before any Judicial Council rulings.
I would prefer not to split, but there are some issues that are so diametrically opposed that there is no way the groups will ever agree with each other on the idea that even the other one may be correct. Some aspects of sexuality fall under that umbrella. There are others as well such as Christology and Pneumatology, and those actually may need more attention than is given to them. It may be time to say the UMC cannot be a medium sized umbrella for all people that is underneath the large umbrella called Christianity. Perhaps it is time for the UMC to decide to become two, three, or more smaller umbrellas under the Wesleyan umbrella which is under the big one of the CHURCH.
The previous article plan, “Mapping the Future of the UMC” , would never be approved by the General Conference., as seems to be the conclusion drawn here. As for this General Conference solution, those unable to pledge and live in covenant would, AFTER an established date and generous protocol, be granted their independence in a new and totally separate denomination funded with adequate start up money from the UMC. After all, these places in defiance have already essentially declared their independence from the UMC. It is way past time to help them administratively and financially formally accomplish this.