[Editor’s Note: It always takes a while to digest the outcomes of any United Methodist General Conference. This is especially true with the postponed 2020 General Conference (April 23-May 3, 2024 in Charlotte, NC). What follows is a deep dive into matters of concern for UM traditionalists. The author wishes only to be identified as a “Hidden Conservative Faithful member of the UMC.” To my knowledge, this is the most detailed and best annotated traditionalist analysis of the watershed events in North Carolina. For my own condensed summary, click here.]
Now that the United Methodist Church’s “2020” General Conference, after five re-schedulings, finally concluded on May 3, people will need some time to understand the momentous changes made. While this denomination is keeping the name “United Methodist” and a proposal to replace the iconic cross-and-flame logo failed, this General Conference has effectively established a new denomination that is very different from the UMC that used to be. This new denomination will only continue with a portion of those who were United Methodists in 2019, and it remains to be seen whether or not it will even keep a majority of 2019 United Methodists.
This new denomination’s leaders have made clear what they do and do not value in their new church…
What’s hot: intersectional progressive social-justice ideology, what centuries of biblical Christian tradition have considered sexual sin (heterosexual as well as homosexual), legalizing drugs and prostitution.
What maybe hot: trusting Unitarian Universalists to shape United Methodist moral theology.
What’s definitely not: the Nicene Creed, Israel, saving sex for marriage, protecting victims of clergy misconduct, tolerance of different political views, caring about North Koreans’ human rights, offering fairness to those who never had a chance to disaffiliate, and making nice with the Global Methodist Church.
The media focused on this conference’s removing longstanding policies disapproving of homosexual practice and, to a lesser extent, taking important first steps for “regionalization” plans to bring greater structural segregation between predominantly white Americans and other global regions. The former has been a focus of decades of controversy. The latter has been widely criticized as segregationist (supposedly “separate but equal”), morally incoherent (allowing different moral standards in different regions – as if God changes His mind when He goes from one continent to another), curtailing Global South power precisely once non-Americans became the majority, and rushing to impose on Africans something most of them (aside from a few over-amplified, unrepresentative figures) have already said they don’t want. When the same basic idea of “regionalization” came before every annual conference in the world in 2009, it was reportedly rejected by some 95% of African United Methodists.
But there were MANY other major changes made.
As we see some UMC leaders go into damage-control mode, beware of misinformation along these lines:
–MYTH: This moved the UMC’s governing Discipline “to neutral” on LGBTQ issues, simply taking out “discriminatory” language to leave a core on which we can all agree. FACT: Many of the revisions to church law go far beyond neutrality to require active United Methodist affirmation of non-traditional sexual identities and practices.
–MYTH: Any suggestion that these changes will not force any congregation to submit to the leadership of non-celibate gay clergy. FACT: Now many congregations will be officially forced to submit to the leadership of non-celibate gay bishops imposed over them, and one adopted petition specifically requires congregations to be prepared to accept pastors of diverse sexual orientations.
-Some may also try to downplay or explain away how this General Conference rolled back church disapproval of pre-marital sex and even adultery. But please look below at this conference’s actions, which show a consistent pattern of the leaders of the new UMC repeatedly refusing to agree that sex is for marriage, and making unforced choices to delete longstanding sex-is-for-marriage language from previously established church law. Research how this ethos has been repeatedly promoted in various General Conference votes and UMC advocacy group statements for many years. This is a logical extension of the “how dare the church object to any private sexual activity between consenting adults?!” arguments used for acceptance of homosexual practice.
–MYTH: Enacting regionalization will mean that even the now officially authorized liberalization of sexuality standards in the USA will somehow not affect other regions. FACT: Remaining with the UMC means that even a conservative region must be effectively muzzled from objecting to American bishops openly having same-sex partners and leading influential councils and agencies of their shared denomination. For any non-US region wishing to even partially maintain traditional standards, regionalization imposes a major unfunded mandate of developing and printing their own Discipline. Plus, in the UMC, bishops are all “bishops of the whole church,” so it is now hypothetically possible (though some would claim this is unlikely) that a partnered gay American bishop could be assigned over an African or Filipino area. (A recent precedent for this is how, after the sudden 2019 death of Sierra Leone’s bishop in an accident, he was replaced by a progressive US Western Jurisdiction bishop, Warner Brown of the San Francisco Area, who has overseen the UMC in that West African country for the past 5 years.) More importantly, Scripture explicitly warns that sexual immorality in one part of church necessarily infects the whole (1 Corinthians 5). Other global impacts are noted below.
More details on these and other matters below. But we United Methodists owe it to ourselves and our fellow congregants to be wary of anyone who promotes any of the myths noted above, or who claims to tell you about what the General Conference did but leaves out key details noted here.
At the bottom, I will say more about how to look up these changes.
Here’s an extensive but non-comprehensive overview of major ways in which this conference has changed the UMC.
- Key sexuality changes
- The UMC Shifts Leftward on Abortion
- Marginalizing Non-Americans
- The UMC Turns More Firmly Against Israel
- Other Issues
- More on the Revised Social Principles
- Disaffiliations and the Global Methodist Church
- Appendix: How to Track Legislation
Key sexuality changes
Parents and youth pastors considering staying United Methodist should consider that if young United Methodists are committed, because of their biblical Christian faith, to stay celibate until marriage—even when this means standing against intense internal, interpersonal, and cultural pressures—they will now find little to no clear encouragement in the official teachings of their denomination.
Petition # 20730: Revised Social Principles [Paragraphs] 161 and 162
Among other sweeping changes, deletes standard that sex is only for marriage, deletes “fidelity” as key part of marriage, deletes landmark statement calling homosexual practice “incompatible with Christian teaching,” and replaces definition of marriage from being “between a man and a woman” to being between “two people” (more on that below). Also deletes current Social Principles language saying “sexual relations where one or both partners are … promiscuous are beyond the parameters of acceptable Christian behavior and are ultimately destructive of the social order,” and instead has new language broadly celebrating how “Human sexuality is a healthy and natural part of life that is expressed in wonderfully diverse ways from birth to death” and the UMC now “honor[s] the diversity of choices and vocations in relation to sexuality” made by different people, with no clear moral limits other than adult consent.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/730/20730-CB-%C2%B6161-G
Note that UMC Discipline Paragraph 101 includes these Social Principles as among the official statements that are authoritative for every global region of the UMC, not subject to regional adaptation:
https://www.umc.org/en/content/book-of-discipline-101-general-book-of-discipline
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/956/20956-FO-%C2%B6101
Petition #20191 (Calendar Item 275): GCFA Responsibility and Petition #20182 (calendar Item 265): Amend Funding Statement
Deletes restrictions in Discipline Paragraphs 806.9 and 613.19, which forbade the use of general and annual-conference denominational funds from being given “to any gay caucus or group” or otherwise being used “to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.” For many years, these restrictions offered re-assurance (however imperfectly honored) to congregations paying apportionments that their offering-plate money would not be used to promote unbiblical immorality. Now that assurance is gone. The deletion of the restriction on denomination-wide apportionment funds was amended in committee to say that this change “takes full effect immediately upon adjournment of the postponed 2020 General Conference.” Both deletions finally adopted in a 667-54 vote.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-items
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/191/20191-FA-%C2%B6806.9-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-item/275
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/182/20182-FA-%C2%B6613.19-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-item/265
Now a required condition of remaining United Methodist is that your congregation will be forced to pay apportionment dollars that they can trust WILL be used “to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.” This is not just hypothetical. Immediately after this change, the liberal leader of the UMC General Commission on Archives and History announced that her apportionment-funded agency will establish a “Center for LGBTQ+ United Methodist Heritage,” making clear the intent was not just objective history, but also a perspective of liberal advocacy.
https://www.resourceumc.org/en/content/gcah-announces-new-center-for-lgbtq-united-methodist-heritage
Note that this particular agency is funded by the denomination’s General Administration (GA) Fund, into which central conferences (non-Americans) are required to pay apportionments:
https://www.umnews.org/en/news/whats-in-the-budget
So now even conservative African and Filipino regions will be required to pay for liberal LGBTQ+ advocacy if they choose to remain United Methodist.
This goes beyond mere neutrality.
Relatedly, Petition #20272 (Calendar Item 62): ALL BELONG: Support for Intersectional Justice Work-GBGM
Amends the duties of the denomination’s apportionment-funded global mission agency to promote intersectional progressive ideology, including fighting to normalize homosexuality and transgenderism, and to treat moral disapproval of either as an evil akin to racism. Now the UMC’s largest apportionment-funded agency is required to work around the world to “Provide training, resources, and consultation for and with all levels of the global church to actively resist intersecting structures of white supremacy, heterosexism, sexism, patriarchy, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, colonialism and classism.” Committee approved 40-5. Plenary approved 663-60.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/272/20272-GM-%C2%B61302-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-item/62
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-items
Shows the dividing Methodists have very different visions of how they understand Christian missions.
This goes FAR beyond mere neutrality.
Petition #20177: A Simple Plan #3
In Paragraph 304 (Qualifications for Ordination), deletes sub-paragraph 3, which had said “self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.” Committee amended to say this change “shall take effect at the close of the postponed 2020 General Conference”
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/177/20177-FO-%C2%B6304.3-G
Petition #20173: “Chastity” instead of “Celibacy”
The official legislative tracking and plenary floor debate were a bit confusing to follow. But basically, this separate petition was heavily amended from the floor to remove from UMC Discipline Paragraph 304’s Ordination Standards (used for screening ministry candidates before they become ordained) the expectation that ministers refrain from pre-marital sex.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/173/20173-FO-%C2%B6304.2-G
On the plenary floor, Texas delegate DeAndre Johnson proposed to amend by substitution, with the new words saying that as part of UMC ordination standards, clergy are called to “social responsibility, and faithful sexual intimacy expressed through fidelity, monogamy, commitment, mutual affection and respect, careful and honest communication, mutual consent, and growth in grace and in the knowledge and love of God.”
Since 1984, these Ordination Standards had included the requirement of “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness.” But in a speech in favor of the Johnson amendment, delegate Brady Whitton of Louisiana (apparently wearing a button for the liberal “Mainstream UMC” caucus) declared that this longstanding phrase “is part of the legacy of harm and exclusion done to our LGBTQ+ siblings and so should be removed” and replaced by passing the Johnson amendment.
The new language’s vague mention of “fidelity” does NOT bar sex by unmarried clergy, as long as they don’t cheat on their girlfriends or boyfriends. And note that even this minimal new standard of vague fidelity is applied only to clergy, while it has been removed from the Social Principles (which are moral standards promoted for the whole church as well as wider society).
Here is how official UMC sources are reporting this change:
In their qualifications for ordination, clergy are no longer asked to agree asked to agree to exercise “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness”
https://advocatesc.org/articles/day-10-gc2020
Cf.
https://www.umnews.org/en/news/may-3-wrap-up-historic-conference-comes-to-a-close
Petition # 20364: A Simple Plan #8
Summary: Removes adultery and pre-marital sex, as well as homosexuality-related offenses, from specific list of behaviors for which clergy can be disciplined!
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/364/20364-JA-%C2%B62702.1-G
More: This petition amends the list of “chargeable offenses” for which UMC clergy can be disciplined to remove officiating gay weddings or openly having a gay partner.
But this change went much further! For decades, this amended paragraph also listed a separate chargeable offense of “immorality including but not limited to, not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage.” The committee majority wanted to keep the word “immorality” but delete the rest of the just-quoted standard (along with other deletions). Traditionalist delegates rallied around a minority report, which offered a compromise of deleting the word “heterosexual” to keep as a chargeable offense “immorality including but not limited to, not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a marriage.” In presenting the minority report, Rev. Bob Zilhaver of Western Pennsylvania, a district superintendent and self-described theological traditionalist, pleaded with fellow delegates to at least make clear that even after the changes on homosexuality, adultery and pre-marital sex would still not be approved behaviors for United Methodist clergy. A noted church-law expert, Zilhaver stressed how General Conference is uniquely responsible for defining what constitutes “immorality,” and pointed out how this language against extra-marital sex was essential for how officials in his own conference were able to bring accountability and healing to an actual recent case of a pastor who was admittedly “polyamorous,” having both a wife and a girlfriend. But this plea to at least continue drawing a clear line against adultery, polyamory, and pre-marital sex among clergy was overwhelmingly rejected, by over 71% of delegates. See the record here:
The Committee Report also amended this to say “This petition becomes effective at the close of the 2024 General Conference and applies retroactively to any pending complaints under the applicable subsections.”
So this arguably means that any clergy who, when this General Conference began, were in the process of being investigated or disciplined for pre-marital sex or adultery, could now be off the hook!
It is highly misleading to claim that this deleted language was not needed because these matters were addressed elsewhere – considering how celibacy in singleness was removed as a standard for clergy and a clear ethic of marital fidelity was rolled back within the Social Principles.
Remember, in the denomination’s church law, clergy can only face formal discipline for misconduct if they commit something actually listed as a “chargeable offense” in Discipline Paragraph 2702 (rather than Paragraph 304 or elsewhere) – and delegates decided to no longer specifically include adultery or pre-marital sex in this list of chargeable offenses. It is theoretically possible that adulterous pastors could still be disciplined if prosecuting church officials argued that their adultery implicitly constituted something else still listed as a chargeable offense, like the vague word “immorality.” But in the UMC’s lengthy, byzantine accountability system, unrepentantly adulterous ministers have now been given the gift of being able to argue back, through various defenses and appeals, “Hey, many people may not approve of my behavior, but our church law no longer specifically lists adultery as a chargeable offense, and General Conference has not provided a clear definition of what exactly counts as ‘immorality,’ other than refusing to make clear that it includes adultery!”
The bottom line: even after being explicitly warned via the minority report, a huge super-majority of delegates chose to make it harder to discipline adulterous or sexually active unmarried clergy. These votes vote presented the new UMC a clear opportunity to make clear that they would at least maintain these basic moral standards, and the UMC overwhelmingly chose an opposite direction.
-Petition #20469: A Simple Plan #5
Deletes longstanding rule that “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.” Committee amended to say this change “becomes effective May 4, 2024.”
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/469/20469-OM-%C2%B6341.6-G
-Petition #20360 (Calendar Item 322): Next Generation UMC #19-Moratorium on Judicial Proceedings
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-items
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/360/20360-JA-%C2%B62701
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-item/322
Apart from the other changes above, declares that “all pending judicial proceedings shall be suspended” for formal complaint (disciplinary) processes that may have already begun over allegations of any minister or denominational official violating any of the now-repealed homosexuality-related restrictions, with this moratorium “go[ing] into effect effective as of the close of the 2020 General Conference.”
More discussion is merited on the direct impact of these changes outside the United States. Earlier General Conference enacted Paragraphs 508 (saying that General Conference changes to church law become effective the following January 1 unless otherwise specified) and 543.17 (which requires that in some non-US regions “legislation passed by a General Conference shall not take effect until 18 months after the close of that General Conference”). However, the latter limitation only applies to regions “using a language other than English” – and so may not apply to the Philippines and other non-US central conferences who use English in their official meetings and communications. Furthermore, under the well-established legal principles that later enactments trump earlier enactments and that specific rules trump general rules, the language in these new petitions noted above saying (without qualification) that they take effect immediately suggests they take effect immediately everywhere.
So as of today, United Methodist ministers outside of the United States who wish to openly engage in pre-marital sex, have same-sex partners, and/or officiate gay weddings, now have a strong argument that, thanks to this recent General Conference, there is now nothing in church law to prevent them from engaging in such behaviors.
Petition #20315 (Calendar Item 249): Building a Fully Inclusive Church
Despite false assurances to the contrary, this new church law now requires ALL congregations to potentially submit to a non-celibate gay pastor.
This petition amends United Methodist definition of its system of “open itineracy,” in UMC Discipline Paragraph 425, through which pastors are appointed to congregations without discrimination based on the pastors’ personal characteristics, to now require that pastors be appointed without discrimination based on the pastors’ “sexual orientation.” This binding church law, as revised, now further requires regional denominational officials train relevant congregational leaders to receive pastors of any “sexual orientation” who may be appointed over them. Provides no opt-out possibility for any conservative congregation not wishing to submit to a non-celibate gay pastor. Committee approved 37-12. Plenary approved 606-91.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/315/20315-HS-%C2%B6425.1-G
This goes FAR beyond mere neutrality.
Bishops and others in damage-control mode claiming that nothing the General Conference did could force your congregation to accept a non-celibate gay pastor are simply not telling the truth.
Petition #20169 (Calendar Item 60): Next Generation UMC #2-Inclusiveness-Amend 140
Establishes new, binding church law condemning “heterosexism” as an evil – alongside “racism, sexism, misogyny, tribalism, and all other forms of xenophobia” – which must be subject to “removal” from within the UMC (rather than tolerating conservative minorities in the church). Committee approved 52-6. Plenary approved 663-60.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/169/20169-FO-%C2%B6140-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-items
Note that this amended Discipline Paragraph 140, is according to UMC Discipline Paragraph 101, part of GLOBALLY binding church law, and no conservative region outside the USA is permitted to produce its own, adapted, different version of this new Paragraph 140:
https://www.umc.org/en/content/book-of-discipline-101-general-book-of-discipline
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/956/20956-FO-%C2%B6101
Remember, EVERYONE ordained in the UMC is asked to affirm their approval of UMC church law. Now this judgment against the alleged evil of “heterosexism” (moral disapproval of homosexual practice—no matter how graciously, lovingly, humbly, and compassionately this perspective is taken) is part of the church law new UMC ministers must be asked to affirm. This will drive away non-liberal new ministers from the denomination’s ordination pipeline, and that is probably deliberate.
This goes FAR beyond mere neutrality.
Inclusion of diverse sexual orientations in church leadership
Five petitions adopted in a 606-91 vote (presumably all on the same consent calendar) now officially urge the inclusion of people of diverse sexual orientations on various denominational agency, annual conference, and district leadership bodies:
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/121/20121-DI-%C2%B6649.2-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/122/20122-DI-%C2%B6650.2-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/123/20123-DI-%C2%B6651.2-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/124/20124-DI-%C2%B6672.2-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/142/20142-DI-%C2%B61120.4-G
Another petition amends church law to declare that the denomination’s nine-member Judicial Council should include people of diverse sexual orientations:
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/142/20142-DI-%C2%B61120.4-G
TEN additional petitions amending church law to call for inclusion of leaders of diverse sexual orientation in other denominational leadership bodies were approved in committee, but the online tracking system gives incomplete or confusing information about their final fate:
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/276/20276-GM-%C2%B61315.1c4-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/276/20276-GM-%C2%B61315.1c4-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/258/20258-GA-%C2%B6705-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/344/20344-IC-%C2%B62003.4-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/393/20393-JA-%C2%B62712.3-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/394/20394-JA-%C2%B62713-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/396/20396-JA-%C2%B62714.3-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/386/20386-JA-%C2%B62709.2-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/363/20363-JA-%C2%B62701-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/376/20376-JA-%C2%B62703-G
However, a look through the listing of ALL Calendar Items indicates that all of these were adopted (presumably on consent calendars) by plenary votes of 663-60 or 667-54
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-items
This goes beyond mere neutrality.
Petition #20598 (Calendar Item 511): Contraception
This new resolution, defending the morality of contraception, was passed 51-5 in committee and then 643-88 in plenary only after being dramatically edited by the “Committee Report.” The changes include striking all of these two paragraphs:
“With other Christians, we reaffirm the church’s long-held understanding that sexual relations are a gift from God, to be enjoyed only within the boundaries of the marriage covenant (¶ 161G). We believe that this moral standard is good and healthiest for all people, and are concerned about social pressures that celebrate promiscuity and other immoral behaviors.”
“We encourage married couples to have respectful, honest dialogue and mutual agreement in deciding what specific approach to contraception is healthiest for them. We oppose any stigmatization of large families.”
Those parts of the original proposal made clear that its support for contraception was in the context of a traditional Christian ethos of sex being for marriage. Even though this original proposal was neutral on homosexuality, simply saying that sex is for marriage and we have moral concerns about promiscuity proved, once again, to be too much to ask of the leaders of the new UMC. And since the leaders of the new UMC refused to say that they oppose stigmatizing large families, does this mean that they are in favor of stigmatizing large families?
The committee’s edits also replaced “brothers and sisters in Christ” with “siblings in Christ,” as in the new UMC, the former language is now considered transphobic.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/598/20598-CB-R9999-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-items
Should Unitarians Shape United Methodist Sexual Theology?
Petition #20788 (Calendar Item 227): Approve Use of “Our Whole Lives” Sexuality and Faith Curriculum
This petition would have amended to amend the UMC Social Principles to declare “The Church approves the use of the ‘Our Whole Lives-Sexuality and Faith’ curriculum….”
As the petition’s rationale acknowledges, “Our Whole Lives” was developed by the Unitarian Universalist Association (a non-Christian religion whose origin story lies in rejecting the divinity of Jesus Christ) and the United Church of Christ (whose extreme liberalism has caused many to joke that its official acronym, UCC, stands for “Unitarians Considering Christ”), who apparently want their sexual ethos to now guide United Methodists.
This “Our Whole Lives” (OWL) curriculum has been a source of controversy. According to one report, it includes “graphic pictures of people having sex” and “close-ups of various body parts and sex acts.”
As the UMC rejects moves away from most other Christian churches on marriage and sex, there is now some movement for United Methodists to have their morals and relevant doctrine shaped by Unitarian Universalists.
The committee neither accepted nor rejected this petition, but voted, in an overwhelming 55-2 vote, to keep it under consideration by referring the matter to the denomination’s Discipleship Ministries agency, a referral approved by the plenary. This suggests that not too many committee delegates saw this proposal as a terrible idea that deserved to be dismissed right away.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/788/20788-CB-¶161.G
Petition 20814 (Calendar Item 176): Annual Conference Strategic Comprehensive Plans for Hispanic/Latinx Ministry, actually amends plans for Hispanic and Latino ministries be replacing the word “Latino” with “Latinx.” The latter reflects transgender ideology, but does not fit with Hispanic linguistic and cultural traditions. Approved 54-2. And apparently approved by plenary 663-55.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/814/20814-CB-R3222
This is consistent with the new ethos seen in the UMC in which, for the sake of active diversity-monitoring personnel, everyone who spoke at the plenary microphone at this conference was pressured to begin by stating not only their name and their conference, but also their race, age category, gender or preferred pronouns. Some shared additional characteristics, like their sexual orientation or if they are “cisgendered” (i.e., not transgendered people).
Relatedly, one tweet of a “monitoring reports” of the demographics of microphone speakers found that on one recent day, 4.8% of speakers identified as neither male nor female, but as “non-binary” gendered:
https://twitter.com/transpreacher/status/1786022397558030505
For comparison, in the USA as a whole, only 1.2 million people identify as non-binary gendered, which in a nation of roughly 330 million, is a miniscule 0.36%.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/nonbinary-lgbtq-adults-us/
So speakers on one day of this United Methodist General Conference were THIRTEEN TIMES MORE LIKELY to be non-binary gendered as the general U.S. population!
The UMC Shifts Leftward on Abortion
This General Conference made several important shifts on abortion, away from more life-affirming elements of the previous UMC.
Before this General Conference, the UMC Social Principles on abortion were neither unambiguously pro-life nor unambiguously pro-choice, but had elements of both perspectives, while the overall position had been slowly adding more and more pro-life nuances in recent years. While some of this balance and nuance continues in the new Social Principles, there are some notable leftward shifts.
The new Social Principles delete previous statements that “we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child” and “We mourn and are committed to promoting the diminishment of high abortion rates.” So now the UMC no longer declares its equal respect for the life and wellbeing of mothers and their unborn children, and the UMC has repealed its earlier desire to lower abortion rates.
The Revised Social Principles also delete a separate sub-paragraph that had urged pastors to be aware of and pastorally sensitive to the realities of those experiencing post-abortion stress. Relatedly, the same Church and Society 2 committee voted AGAINST Petition #20581: Healing Post Abortion Stress, which would have re-adopted an official resolution, on the books since 2004, recognizing that while there is a legal right to abortion in much of the world, the fact is that “some regret that event later in life,” and so “urges pastors to become informed about the symptoms and behaviors associated with post-abortion stress” and to make contact information available for relevant counseling.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/581/20581-CB-R3304-G
Like the aforementioned Social Principles paragraph, in 2004, this received overwhelming committee support, from delegates who were more conservative as well as those who were more liberal by 2004 UMC standards. Now only 24 voted in favor, vs. 37 against this same resolution. This is a BIG SHIFT. It perhaps reflects the UMC being shaped by recent shifts in the secular political Left of refusing to support any limits on or acknowledge negative aspects about abortion. Together, these were decisions of the denomination to turn its back on an important ministry need.
Apart from the Social Principles, this conference adopted, in a 686-36 vote, Petition #20847 (Calendar Item 383): RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE. Submitted by the New England Conference, this adds a new resolution to the UMC Book of Resolutions broadly defending elective abortion as a “right” and a matter of “health care.” This resolution declares that “United Methodists pledge solidarity with those who seek” elective abortions by “taking active measures” such as accompanying them to abortion appointments, and pledging that “United Methodists and their churches” will support abortion rights “through personal prayer, letter writing campaigns to their legislators and, when necessary, peaceful protest.” Before the plenary session gave final approval, this was approved in committee in a 52-1 vote.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/847/20847-CB-R9999
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-items
Marginalizing Non-Americans
Some have reported that after many years of losing American members, and recently seeing thousands of US congregations disaffiliate, the majority of the UMC’s global membership is now in Africa. For example:
For quite some time, over 95%, of United Methodists outside the USA have long in Sub-Saharan African conferences. For some recent stats, from even shortly BEFORE the vast majority of US disaffiliations, see under “jurisdictions” at https://www.umdata.org/statistics and also
And yet somehow, this General Conference was structured to give a majority of delegates to the (now very liberal) American minority, and to give less than 1/3 of delegates to the African majority. See page 30-31:
This problem was worsened by Africans getting to seat much fewer than their allotted 278 delegates. Numerous others, including even some liberal leaders, have complained and spoken out how this conference suspiciously saw higher than usual numbers of elected African delegates “unable” to make it to the USA to participate in the conference.
Marginalizing non-Americans, especially Africans, was also seen in several key decisions voted on.
UMC Discipline Paragraph 705 has long required that in deciding the membership of the boards of directors of powerful denominational agencies, American members get elected from within their own home jurisdictions, while most of those from other countries must instead be chosen by the Council of Bishops, which is numerically dominated by American liberals. This structurally allows liberal American leaders to potentially block a non-US region from being represented by an individual who genuinely represents the perspectives of his or her home region, when dominant liberal Americans would rather not hear that perspective. Petition #20263 sought to change this, by making most non-American members chosen by the non-American bishops, while also increasing non-US representation (but maintaining a US majority) on the board of directors of the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women (COSROW), a prominent, apportionment-funded denominational agency. As the petition’s rationale stated: “We must ensure that gender issues in central conferences are given the attention they need. And the central conferences’ own leaders should select their representatives, as Americans pick their own. Having a USA-majority Council of Bishops select central conference representatives is unfair. Central conference leaders best understand their members.” This basic fairness reform was overwhelmingly rejected in committee, with 39 votes against and only 7 in favor:
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/263/20263-GA-%C2%B6705-G
Petition #20348 (Calendar Item 308) would have slightly shifted leadership slots to increase non-American and particularly (but not only) African representation in leadership of this same COSROW agency, while keeping an American majority. Rather than adopting this petition, at the last-minute motion of a liberal American delegate, the conference instead voted, 452-260, to refer the proposal to the denomination’s finance agency “for an analysis of the financial implications on the budget”—even though this petition would NOT have increased the overall number of members of the board of directors! This referral means that there cannot be any increase in non-US representation on this agency until advocates try again at the next General Conference, at the earliest. Such referrals have long been a tactic in the UMC for killing proposals.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-item/308
See pages 37-38:
Meanwhile, Petition #20346 proposed requiring that this same COSROW women’s advocacy agency devote “at least one-quarter of its work and programming to defending the dignity and equality of women, in our church as well as in society, within the [non-US] central conferences.” General Conference only passed this after an amendment completely gutted it, to replace the requirement of “at least one-quarter of its work” with the laughably vague standard of “a portion of its work.” If COSROW spends five minutes a year outside of the USA, that counts as “a portion.” Liberal delegates may be patting themselves on the back for being so generous as to promise to devote “a portion” of the work of this agency to walking with those outside the USA. But the fact remains that now that non-Americans are the majority of members, the governing liberals refused to devote even one quarter of the agency’s work to concerns outside of the USA.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-item/241
Petition 20137: Global Justice for Lay Leaders sought to provide funding to ensure non-Americans’ participation in an influential leadership group, in response to how the lack of such funding has made this group U.S. dominated. Only 3 committee delegates supported this, out of 29 voting.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/137/20137-ST-%C2%B61116-!
The UMC establishment proposed $4.9 million in apportionment funding to Africa University over the next four years, a decline of nearly half. But another proposal called for “an apportionment of $10 million over a four-year period” for Africa University (which would have been a slight increase), with an additional $10 million to be raised through special gifts. The latter proposal failed in a 356-387 plenary vote. Instead, the deep cuts were adopted.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/1120/21120-FA-NonDis
see DCA pages 1875-1876:
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/849/20849-CC-R6001-$-G
Without the severe proportional under-representation of Africa at this General Conference, this vote would have likely gone differently.
Meanwhile, the modest Central Conference Theological Education Fund (for theological schools outside of the United States), was slashed by an even higher percentage, 50.4%, than the 47.8% cuts to the much larger Ministerial Education Fund (primarily for theological schools in the USA). See DCA pages 1870-1872:
The UMC Turns More Firmly Against Israel
Another BIG SHIFT was seen in how this General Conference addressed the Arab-Israeli conflict. While progressive United Methodist activists have long obsessively demonized the Jewish nation, and had some successes in pushing through various resolutions from the perspective of solely or primarily blaming Israel, in previous General Conferences, they faced pushback in some relevant proposals, and their proposals for anti-Israel divestment repeatedly failed by overwhelming super-majorities. Now, opposition to anti-Israel agendas has evaporated.
Petition #20539 (Calendar Item 364): Exclude Government Debt of Countries Involved in Prolonged Military Occupations
This petition was approved in committee 26-7, and then won its final adoption on a consent calendar, 686-36. Through this new resolution, the denomination now officially chastises Israel (along with Morrocco and Turkey) and “prayerfully calls upon the boards and agencies throughout the connection and its own investment managers” to financially divest from such nations.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/539/20539-CA-R9999-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-items
Anti-Israel activists cheered this move as “the first such divestment action by a major Christian denomination”
By a majority of 663-55 (likely all on the same consent calendar), this General Conference adopted three political resolutions following the pattern of selectively finding fault with Israel and accusing it of wrongdoing while largely ignoring the faults of Hamas and Israel’s other enemies:
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/622/20622-CC-R9999-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/554/20554-CC-R6111-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/553/20553-CC-R6112-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-items
Meanwhile, 84% voting committee delegates rejected an invitation (Petition 20611) to at least express concern, in a nuanced way, about recent global trends of anti-Semitism:
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/611/20611-CB-R9999-G
Meanwhile, in another committee, delegates were offered a chance to bring a tiny bit of balance to this General Conference’s repeated, strong criticisms of Israel, with a proposed resolution on “Rejection of Anti-Israel Blacklist.” Instead, 21 out of 23 committee delegates voted to reject this resolution:
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/1085/21085-CC-R9999
Other Issues
Not content to simply remove church policies disapproving of homosexuality, or even restrictions of clergy extramarital sexual activity, this General Conference further rolled back accountability for clergy on everything.
Petition #20926 (Calendar Item 314): Complaint Procedures and Just Resolution amends Discipline Paragraph 362, the main church law place for beginning formal complaints against clergy accused of various sorts of misconduct. Key changes are repealing recently enhanced accountability standards, so that bishops will have an effectively unchecked, unilateral right to dismiss complaints against wayward clergy, no matter how egregious and well-documented the offenses, and resolutions of complaints will no longer have to state how identified harms will be addressed. The first change came from deleting the limitation that bishops can only dismiss a complaint against a minister when the accusation of wrongdoing has “no basis in law or fact.”
This petition even deletes the Discipline’s requirement that a bishop who dismisses a formal complaint against a minister has to share the reasons for this dismissal with the person who submitted the complaint. All three changes leave victims of clergy misconduct more vulnerable. Approved 46-1 in committee and then 667-54 in plenary.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/926/20926-JA-%C2%B6362
Compare to the version of Paragraph 362 that this replaces:
Ironically, this change was authored by the Commission on the Status and Role of Women (COSROW), an apportionment-funded agency that was supposed to be concerned for victims of clergy misconduct, rather than making it potentially harder to ensure accountability for ministers who abuse their trust or power.
For centuries, the Nicene Creed has identified a core of basic, biblical doctrine shared by Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestant churches around the world. It is part of the Global Methodist Church’s Doctrinal Standards. But attempts to add the Nicene Creed to the UMC’s Doctrinal Standards were overwhelmingly rejected in committee, with delegates voting 43-1, 43-0, and 47-12 against the various pieces:
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/239/20239-GA-%C2%B63-C-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/244/20244-GA-%C2%B617-C-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/159/20159-FO-%C2%B6104-G
This defeat was a triumph of the common liberal slogan asserting that the UMC is “not a creedal church.” Largely identical petitions were submitted to the 2016 General Conference, and also defeated in committee. That year, they were defeated by committee delegates voting 47-21, 47-21, and 47-18 against. That is a BIG SHIFT. Evidently, the Nicene Creed has become much less popular among those who remain UMC.
DEFEATED: Petition #20614 – On Humility, Politics, and Christian Unity
This petition proposed the re-adoption of a resolution declaring that “our unity as Christians is found in repentance for our sins, acceptance of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, and submission to the will of God as revealed in Scripture, rather than in any secular or partisan political agenda,” and called for the UMC to tolerate a range of non-theological political views among its members.
But apparently, the new denominational leadership is unwilling to affirm either the basic Christian doctrines in the just-quoted words OR tolerate much dissent within the UMC from the left-wing political agendas they keep using the denomination’s bureaucracy (and apportionment dollars) to promote. Out of 34 committee delegates voting on this, only 3 voted in favor.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/614/20614-CA-R9999-G
This is a BIG SHIFT. This same identical resolution was approved overwhelmingly in committee and plenary in 2008:
https://calms2008.umc.org/Menu.aspx%40type%3DPetition%26mode%3DSingle%26Number%3D507.html
While repeatedly accusing democratic Israel of alleged human rights abuses, this same General Conference refused to find any fault with the human rights record of North Korea.
As this General Conference was set to re-adopt a lengthy resolution (Resolution #6135) on the Korean Peninsula, Petition #20637: Human Rights in North Korea sought to amend this resolution by adding a section acknowledging North Korean human rights abuses. The rationale for this proposed reform noted: “In over 3,000 words on problems in the Korean Peninsula, this resolution has no clear, explicit acknowledgment of the horrible suffering imposed by the North Korean regime on its own people. We owe it to the oppressed, especially persecuted Christians, and our church’s own credibility, to break our silence.”
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/637/20637-CC-R6135-G
But this plea fell on deaf ears at this General Conference. Instead, committee delegates adopted an updated version of this resolution, continuing to avoid acknowledging the depth of North Korea’s human rights abuses, while politically advocating for “Removing sanctions” on and promoting “foreign investment” in the Communist dictatorship.
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/550/20550-CC-R6135-G
So the UMC’s moral compass is to politically advocate for financial “divestment” from Israel but “foreign investment” in North Korea.
This new UMC also showed the dominance of other far-left political agendas, with no significant dissent.
The UMC Doubles Down on Supporting Legalizing All Drugs and Prostitution
The narrowly focused Petition #20638: “No Church Support for Drugs and Prostitution” would have simply amended a lengthy resolution in the UMC’s official Book of Resolutions (Resolution # 5031, Humanizing Criminal Justice) to delete a few words putting the UMC on record as broadly “support[ing] the repeal of laws that criminalize” such “personal conditions or behaviors” as “drug use, prostitution.”
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/638/20638-CA-R5031-G
Out of 33 committee delegates voting, only 5 supported this reform. So this reform died in committee. So now with the support of over 84% of committee delegates, the UMC remains officially in support of legalizing prostitution and all drugs, with no qualification.
See the UMC’s official Resolution #5031, Humanizing Criminal Justice: https://www.umcjustice.org/who-we-are/proposed-resolutions-for-general-conference-charlotte/humanizing-criminal-justice-5031
Petition #20417 (Calendar Item 244): Reporting Church’s Progress on Facilities Becoming Carbon Neutral and/or Having Net Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Amend Paragraph 2550 to impose in a top-down way a new, potentially burdensome requirement in the annual reports the trustees of every local church must produce. Now this report demanded of local church leaders must also include, among other things:
“An evaluation of all church buildings, grounds, and facilities in relation to their impact on the church’s ability to be carbon neutral and/or have net zero greenhouse gas emissions; and, when applicable, a plan and time line for the renovation and development of church buildings, grounds, and facilities to bring the church closer to being at least carbon neutral and/or having at least net zero greenhouse gas emissions.”
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/417/20417-LC-%C2%B62550-G
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-item/244
A more complicated matter, this General Conference revised distribution of bishops in several ways. In the USA, they basically changed the distribution of bishops to this allotment between the five U.S. jurisdictions: Southeastern: 9, Northeastern: 6, North Central: 6, South Central: 6, Western: 5.
https://www.umnews.org/en/news/delegates-eliminate-formula-for-calculating-bishops
For some recent history on these numbers:
https://goodnewsmag.org/the-um-church-adjusts-to-fewer-bishops/
In this new distribution, there will be a huge range, from the Western Jurisdiction getting one bishop for every 45,224.4 professing members to the Southeastern Jurisdiction getting one bishop for every 244,331.2 professing members.
Note that while the small-membership Western Jurisdiction already had five bishops, delegates decided to insist on keeping a minimum of five bishops per jurisdiction. This meant that while the West alone gets to keep its same number of bishops, every other region is forced to downsize. Remember, for many years, the Western Jurisdiction has not fully paid for its own bishops, but depended on subsidies paid from the apportionments of the rest of the U.S. For all of the talk of “shared sacrifice” at this General Conference, the Western Jurisdiction was not asked to give up its subsidies from other parts of the USA.
United Methodists in other US regions may wonder: why is there not enough of a budget for us to have more bishops in our area, while the Western Jurisdiction gets to have such a disproportionately large share of bishops? Why do our congregations have to keep paying apportionments to pay for bishops in the Western Jurisdiction, including two partnered gay bishops there? Why does our denomination’s budget for bishops give the Western Jurisdiction so many more bishops than their numbers merit, rather than shifting to pay for more bishops in Africa, where there is such growth and need? The answer to all: because delegates decided that this was the best stewardship of the money our congregations are forced to pay as long as they remain United Methodist.
More on the Revised Social Principles
The full, older UMC Social Principles can be found here:
https://www.umc.org/en/content/our-social-principles
And the full Revised Social Principles, now adopted by this General Conference in several large chunks, are here:
https://www.umcjustice.org/documents/124
Someone should really take the time to do an extensive tracking of all major shifts made between the two documents.
But especially noteworthy changes are in “The Nurturing Community” section. The one amendment this General Conference made to the Revised Social Principles was about the definition of marriage, in this section.
The UMC Social Principles had “affirm[ed] the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman.” The Revised Social Principles proposal changed this definition of marriage from saying it is between “a man and a woman” to being between “two people of faith” (implicitly of whatever genders). The plenary basically appended two different definitions to this phrase, so that now, as adopted, it says that marriage in the church is between “two people of faith, an adult man and woman of consenting age, and or two adult persons of consenting age.” That amendment is NOT a substantial shift from the original Revised Social Principles proposal—marriage in the UMC can be between a man and a woman, but it does not have to be.
Again remember, while ordination standards (in DisciplineParagraph 304) speak to special, higher-level expectations of those set apart as UMC clergy, the Social Principles are the denomination’s core statements about the morality they promote for everybody – lay members of the church as well as everyone in society.
With everything noted in the Sexuality section above, it is a HUGE shift, worth emphasizing, how the Social Principles now leave no clear moral boundary for sex other than adult consent. These new Social Principles delete mention of marital “fidelity” in the definition of marriage above. The only remaining place where the new Social Principles talk about marital “fidelity” is in a somewhat separate and more negative context, simply to say that marital fidelity does not mean you cannot divorce an abusive spouse.
Even the minimal restriction of marriage to only two people (with no more mention of fidelity) is limited by a new qualifier—that this limitation applies when talking about marriage “in the church.” The previous Social Principles were less hesitant about promoting the church’s values as good for all people in society, with statements decrying sexual promiscuity as “ultimately destructive to individuals, families, and the social order” and “support[ing] laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman” – two statements now deleted from the Revised Social Principles.
A new statement on polygamy is a bit weak. It does not quite say that the UMC “opposes” or even “discourages” polygamy, only that “We cannot endorse the practice of polygamy.” No clear reason is given for WHY the church would disapprove of polygamy. The new polygamy statement expresses appropriate concern for the women and children who risk being thrown into poverty if suddenly cast out of a polygamous family. Some of this statement’s language may be aimed against longstanding practices among African United Methodists of limiting levels of church approval and participation for individuals who remain in polygamist marriages.
But taken together, the Revised Social Principles’ shift to shrinking back from promoting the church’s values on marriage and sex in society, deleting support for “laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” and adding new language broadly “affirm[ing] the importance of civil marriage” without making clear that the UMC wants governments to only promote monogamous marriages, all add up in a way that could be heard as the UMC having no objection to government approval of polygamy.
While both the new and the old Social Principles have important nuances on divorce, the new stance is much less hesitant on divorce. Among other changes, on the divorce stance, this conference deleted previous language saying that the church (1) desired to “encourag[e] reconciliation” of divorce-minded couples when possible, (2) was “concerned about high divorce rates,” and (3) “griev[ed] over the devastating emotional, spiritual, and economic consequences of divorce for all involved, understanding that women and especially children are disproportionately impacted by such burdens.”
At the end of its revised statement on abortion, these Revised Social Principles add an entire new paragraph to endorse such controversial practices as sperm donation, surrogacy, and in vitro fertilization (IVF), without any clear acknowledgment of the serious moral concerns involved (such as intentional mass production of so-called “excess” or “waste” embryos, exploitation of poor women’s wombs, etc).
Disaffiliations and the Global Methodist Church
Paragraph 2553, adopted at the 2019 General Conference, gave congregations a limited right to disaffiliate from our denomination for reasons of conscience related to our denomination’s theological disagreements, with an expiration date last year. Over 7,000 congregations exercised their right to disaffiliate under this paragraph. However, these were all in the USA, since bishops and other officials claimed that this did not apply outside of the USA, while leaders of several US annual conference imposed all kinds of punitive requirements on disaffiliation that made it impossible for most in these places. So the majority of United Methodists never had a chance to even have an option of disaffiliating under Paragraph 2553.
Various proposals sought to clearly give ALL congregations around the world one last limited chance to disaffiliate, in ways that on the one hand, would have required significant exit fees many disaffiliation advocates saw as unfair, but on the other hand, would have prevented additional barriers to make disaffiliation impossible. Proponents of such proposals sought to level the playing field, giving everyone in the world the same right to decide their future, and stopping the UMC leadership from imposing a special level of paternalistic control over non-Americans. As the Wesleyan Covenant Association said, “what is fair for some should be fair for all.”
Another proposal submitted by a leader of the Africa Initiative, a group of theologically conservative African United Methodist leaders, would have offered a streamlined process to allow an overwhelmingly unified annual conference to leave the UMC to transfer into another Methodist denomination, without UMC leaders from other regions of the world having veto power over their self-determination.
All such proposals were voted down overwhelmingly, by delegates essentially voting to heavy-handedly coerce and manipulate people into remaining part of the UMC even when they want to disaffiliate, with the new liberal majority refusing to show a little graciousness in victory.
Ironically, these same delegates adopted the Revised Social Principles, which at one point say:
“we reject attempts to impose beliefs on people or to coerce or manipulate them into joining or remaining a part of a religious tradition when they have decided to disaffiliate”
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/732/20732-CC-%C2%B6165-G
Much of liberal UMC advocacy follows a pattern of sanctimoniously lecturing societal and government leaders to follow certain moral standards these same liberal UMC leaders are unwilling to pay the price of following in their own lives.
Relatedly, other petitions addressed the Global Methodist Church, a denomination formed by fellow Methodists with whom the leaders of the new UMC co-labored for decades together, until very recently, as members of the same denomination. But the new UMC leaders repeatedly shot down proposals to seek to make nice with Global Methodists.
Delegates in two committees overwhelmingly rejected three petitions to take the minimal steps of recognizing the GMC as a fellow Christian denomination and vaguely expressing hope for friendly ecumenical relations:
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/960/20960-FO-%C2%B6443
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/1078/21078-HS-NonDis
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/1079/21079-HS-NonDis
Just as overwhelmingly defeated was a fourth proposal, which did not even name the GMC, to “seek possible relationships” with “other Methodist denominations joined by churches disaffiliating from The United Methodist Church under ¶2553, and affiliations developed by churches disaffiliating from The United Methodist Church under ¶2553”
https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/petition/1077/21077-HS-NonDis-$
This is a BIG SHIFT from how in a 2021 special session, the UMC’s liberal North Central Jurisdiction adopted an otherwise very liberal resolution that included saying, in the context of the UMC’s separation, “We respect our siblings who depart and desire to do no harm as we anticipate cooperative ecumenical efforts in the future.”
To be fair, after General Conference, a few annual conferences announced that they will have a local policy to allow congregations to disaffiliate, and other conferences may follow.
Traditionalists in more coercive conferences should carefully consider the deep spiritual and practical implications of the decisions they must now make. But in addition to the major shifts recorded above, it is worth considering how for their part, numerous leaders of the new UMC made clear that they do NOT see conservative Methodists as beloved co-religionists – from the undisguised contempt with which non-liberal leaders were treated to the refusal to listen to pleas for liberal delegates to treat others as they would want to be treated to the mean-spirited shaming experienced by numerous conservative delegates (encouraged from the General Conference stage by the president of the UMC Council of Bishops!) as if they had no right to be there.
One key moment was when the conference was essentially debating whether or not to close the door on allowing further disaffiliations (particularly for those who never had a real chance to disaffiliate), and a conservative lay delegate nervously, pleadingly spoke to an apparently hostile room about her desire to allow a way “for our churches with conservative, traditional values to go peacefully,” saying, among other things, that she did NOT want “our churches to be caught up in the court system” – an ugly reality faced by other denominations which could have been avoided if this General Conference had allowed a “gracious exit” for all who have never had such a chance and/or for those who chose to trust their bishops’ or district superintendents telling them they could wait and see whether or not this General Conference made any liberal changes on marriage or other issues. Delegates overwhelmingly voted against her pleas:
Here and elsewhere, non-liberals explicitly pleaded with the new liberal majority to work together a way to give congregations an option to “disaffiliate peacefully” in order to avoid court battles over church property, and the denomination’s top policymakers overwhelmingly voted to make clear that they were NOT interested.
Traditionalists putting their trust in the promises of denominational officials now claiming that they will tolerate and respect the consciences of conservatives who stay UMC (and keep paying apportionments!) should consider that this will often mean giving open-ended trust to the very same people who:
- blatantly broke their holy vows to uphold church law when it was traditionalist;
- have been unwilling to spend any political capital to defend conservatives being bullied in the UMC;
- promised to allow fairer denominational division through the “Protocol on Grace and Reconciliation through Separation,” but then betrayed their promises after they made sure they would already take what they wanted away from conservatives;
- claim that it was “harmful” for the UMC Discipline to officially teach that homosexual practice was immoral (If it’s harmful for the Discipline to say it, then it’s necessarily harmful for any pastor, congregation, or Sunday school to teach it—and they should not expect their bishop to indefinitely tolerate their being allowed to teach “harmful” theology); and
- will soon become successors to current bishops, superintendents, and other officials, after having never promised to tolerate and respect conservatives’ consciences.
Appendix: How to Track Legislation
Finally, here is how to track legislative decisions made, via the UMC’s new, much less transparent system, with much more incomplete reporting:
At https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org you have to set up a username and password to access such info.
Then, after you set up an account, you should be able to access the links above to info on specific petitions. This new system can be confusing. Crucially, you need to look under the petition title and then below the boxes labeled “Petition Info” and “Committee Action,” and under “View,” you actually click on the blue-background text and select one of several drop-down options, to select:
- what the “2016 resolution” or “2016 Book of Discipline” wording was, before this General Conference, which this petition sought to amend or address; OR
- how the “Petition” as originally submitted was worded; OR
- The “Committee Report” of whether the legislative committee’s ultimate decision was to reject or approve the petition, and VERY importantly, what amendments, if any, the committee made to the originally submitted petition; OR
- any “Minority Report,” if any, emerging from a minority faction of committee delegates; OR
- final “Plenary Action” taken on this proposal, if any such action has happened yet.
Even as of this writing, this online tracking system appears to not be fully updated in all places. For some petitions, it appears that the only place where the final vote is recorded is in the list of all of those who were given a Calendar Item number:https://www.dailychristianadvocate.org/en/legislation/calendar-items
Another key way of looking up the full text of petitions as submitted is looking up by committee or a Ctrl+F search by 5-digit petition number or other identifiers –in the Advance Daily Christian Advocates (ADCAs).
Volume 2.1
Volume 2.2
Volume 3
But those last links only show what was submitted. Records of committee actions taken to approve or refer petitions can also be found in the daily DCA’s published at General Conference, but this requires a lot of flipping back and forth, and does not show the final results:
https://www.resourceumc.org/en/content/gc2020-daily-christian-advocate
People Need Jesus 
When our church was going through it’s nearly year-long process to leave the UMC, one of the people we were dealing with said, “think about staying because if all the churches like yours leave, we know where this is going to go”. Thanks for all the work to document that the person was right, but our church was unable to prevent the insanity and was also right to get out while it could.
Where’s the courage to put your name on this?
It was written as a private e-mail. I was given permission to share it on the condition that the author’s name would not be shared. It was not a lack of courage, but a desire to stay out of the fray.
I’m sure the author does not want to suffer attacks from the “loving” and “tolerant” left.
Barbara
May31,2024
You criticize a person for not putting their name on a comment, you are David, David who? There are hundred’s, perhaps millions of David’s in the country. With that being said, do you consider yourself courageous? Just sayin’.
Is it possible to access The Daily Christian Advocate without paying for a subscription?
They started charging $50 to get access to all the legislation tracking features, etc. You can, however, visit the General Conference website and should be able to access some materials. I am afraid you will find that frustrating and of little help. https://www.resourceumc.org/en/churchwide/general-conference-2020
Anybody who has been “in the fray” knows how beastly costly it is to contend for the ancient received faith. “They will come after you.” The author was Scripturally wise to remain unnamed. The facts speak for themselves with the voice of a loud trumpet.
Chris – We haven’t been in each other’s company for many years. As you know, we were classmates at Candler and in Teaching Parish. Many of our people where I serve have been reading your materials. When they ask me if I’ve seen your site, it tell them that I have, and that “Chris is one of the smartest people I know.”
I’m disappointed that you chose to publish anything anonymously. If someone doesn’t believe in their perspective enough to put their name on it, why should anyone else give it any consideration at all? Readers are deprived of considering the source and understanding a point of reference. It’s bad form in a debate.
As a clergy person who remained UMC, I believe that there is more agreement than not between us on many issues referenced in this and many posts on this site. But as I see it, anonymous critique, even if accurate, is out of bounds.
Peace,
Sean Robinson
Peachtree City UMC (Georgia)
Thanks for the comment, Sean. Good to hear from you. This post was a private message sent by a friend to other friends. The author (a United Methodist of deep knowledge on the church) did not seek any limelight and only allowed me to share it with a promise of anonymity. I asked to publish it because it is the most complete and well documented critique available of General Conference from a traditional perspective. I believe it to be factually accurate and honest in its bias. I take responsibility for any factual errors shared, but no one has offered any corrections. The Federalist Papers, Common Sense, and Frankenstein were all originally published anonymously. We are still not sure who wrote Hebrews, but it sure is good stuff. Peace to you.