by Lonnie Brooks, May 23, 2024

As part of my reflection on the United Methodist General Conference I’ve been formulating a presentation on what I’ve been calling in this medium the spirit of Progressive triumphalism that I found to be pervasive throughout the Conference. Some have called it mean spirited, but I don’t go there. In fact, I believe that with very few exceptions, if any at all, everybody involved in the processes acts as he or she does to bring about good for the Church. Nobody of whom I know intends to bring about bad things for the Church. And Niebuhr reminds us that the only thing that is inherently evil is evil intent. None of us is there. But with that as a starting point, I want to present my paper here in which I point out the specific instances in which I found the Progressive spirit of triumph to be salient in the process and the product.

Introduction

Back in February of 2023, about a year in advance of the just completed General Conference, I published a commentary in which I predicted that the fragile coalition between Centrists and Progressives that formed in the wake of the General Conference of 2019 was in danger of breaking down and disintegrating in the face of a spirit of triumph likely to be demonstrated by Progressives at General Conference 2020-24.

What I said was the following:

The really bad news for centrists is that with the departure of the Traditionalists who have maintained the balance with the Progressives, the Progressives are poised to make a triumphal display of power at the upcoming General Conference in which they will move forward with the entire agenda of the Progressive movement.

It’s time to see just how the spirit of triumphalism was demonstrated at GC20/24.

1.

At the top of the agenda of the Progressives was the adoption of the proposal for Regionalization of the Church introduced to GC by the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, acting, in essence, as a proxy for the group that called itself the Christmas Covenant. There were 8 petitions in that package, and 5 of the 8 were adopted on Consent Calendars A01, B01, and B03. A01 was adopted by a vote of 646 to 73. B01 was adopted 618 to 99. And B03 was adopted 663 to 55.

Of the remaining 3 petitions in this package, the one proposing the amendments to the Constitution was adopted by a vote of 586 to 164, and the other two were adopted by votes of 593 to 139 and 639 to 85. Following the vote on the last of those three petitions that completed that package, the Chair of the Legislative Committee on Conferences that presented it said, “Thank you, General Conference. I hope you enjoyed that as much as I did”

2.

The second item on the Progressive agenda was removal of the language of the UM Book of Discipline that was harmful to people who identify as LGBTQIA+. Herein following I’ll use LGBT as shorthand for that. There were numerous packages of petitions submitted that were intended to accomplish that, one of which was my own set of 8 petitions called, “A Fully Inclusive Way Forward.” GC20/24 focused its attention on a select few of these. Of the 27 petitions in Joseph Lopez’s package called “Building a Fully Inclusive Church” 17 were adopted, 2 were referred, and 1 failed. 7 others were not considered in plenary, which means they were not adopted. Lopez also submitted 3 other petitions calling for removal of the changes made at GC19 that strengthened the prohibitions on inclusion of LGBT people in the life and ministries of the Church, and of those 1 was adopted, and 2 were not considered.

Three of the six petitions of A Simple Plan that got considerable attention at GC19 but failed there were adopted at GC20/24. The other three were not considered.

Of the package of petitions entitled “All Belong,” some of which dealt with LGBT inclusion and others with other items on the extreme Progressive agenda, 5 were adopted, 1 failed, and 11 were not considered. Of those which were adopted, all but one was on Consent Calendar A03 or A04. The one that was not on a Consent Calendar was included in a bundling motion that had the effect of a Consent Calendar and was adopted by that method.

Another package of petitions in this genre was partially entitled, “Local Discernment.” Of those 11 petitions, 4 were adopted and 7 were not considered.

There was a package of petitions submitted by Junius Dotson entitled “Next Generation UMC,” and much of it was in this genre. Of particular note were two of those subtitled, “Moratorium on Judicial Proceedings.” Both these petitions were adopted on Consent Calendar A04 and had the effect of voiding all current and pending charges for violation of LGBT related offenses. Moreover, another of these petitions removed the mandatory penalties that had been inserted for conviction on such charges. Much of this legislation was made effective upon the close of GC20/24. Of the 18 petitions in this package, 8 were adopted, 1 was referred, and 9 were not considered.

One of 3 petitions from Joseph Lopez calling for removal of the language restrictive of LGBT persons added at GC19 was adopted.

3.

Petition 20159 calling for the addition of the Nicene Creed to the doctrinal standards of the Church was submitted by the Kentucky Annual Conference, and it was not supported in the legislative committee and thus not scheduled to be considered in plenary. However, 21 delegates petitioned to have it assigned a Calendar Item number and brought to plenary for debate and decision. Then in the last plenary session of the last day of GC20/24 Lonnie Chafin made a motion, part of which was to reject all remaining petitions that had not been supported in their legislative committees. With minimal discussion, this petition along with eight others was rejected by a vote of 514 to 137, and The United Methodist Church chose to continue to stand outside the consensus among churches that hold the Nicene Creed as a standard of doctrine.

4.

Sometime prior to the convening of GC20/24 the Secretary of the General Conference asked the chair of each delegation to provide him with a list of those persons within their annual conference who had submitted petitions and subsequently left the UMC by withdrawal or disaffiliation. Then in the first DCA of GC20/24 (V5 No1) beginning on page 1858, the Secretary provided a list of petitions that the persons identified as having withdrawn had submitted. In the next day’s DCA (V5 No2) the Committee on Reference that decides what petitions do and do not qualify for consideration by the GC announced in its report that “all legislation submitted by individuals who have withdrawn or disaffiliated from the United Methodist [sic] as of April 22, 2024 be disqualified.” There was no accompanying rationale to explain how this situation was different from one wherein the petitioner had died between the time of submission and the convening of the Conference. Neither was it explained how this is different from the situation wherein a petition submitted by a person in good standing had become Church law followed by the withdrawal or expulsion from the Church years later of the submitter. This seems to me to be as clear a case of vindictiveness as can be demonstrated in Church processes, and it has no precedent in the UMC.

5.

Another of the major objectives of the Progressive wing of the Church at GC20/24 was the deletion of ¶2553 from the Book of Discipline, the paragraph that provided a right of disaffiliation to local churches in the jurisdictions, and concomitantly to block any and all attempts either to reinstate that paragraph or to provide any alternative to it. I direct you elsewhere to find the history of ¶2553 and initiatives for amicable separation. However, the Progressives were not only successful in this, they were spectacularly successful. Any possibility that any separations in the future will be amicable by design has been vacated. There is no such possibility, and amicability in that process will be under local control and, most likely, accidental. There were sporadic attempts by Centrists and the few remaining Traditionalists in America and some of the Africans who were able to get to the Conference to provide a continuing route for amicable separation, but they were systematically rebuffed.

On the contrary, what happened instead was that Petition 21027 calling for a graceful path to reaffiliation of those churches that had disaffiliated and changed their minds about that was amended on the floor by lay delegate Jay Brim of the Rio Texas Annual Conference to require that a reaffiliating local church be required to acknowledge the applicability of the Trust Clause. The whole saga is that the legislative committee amended Huffman’s petition by substituting this language for the entire thing: “With a spirit of grace, we welcome those churches which have disaffiliated or withdrawn to rejoin The United Methodist Church. Where applicable, every annual conferences shall have a policy of reaffiliation for the churches seeking to return to the connection.” You’ll find this as Calendar Item 237 on DCA page 2099. Brim’s amendment was to add this sentence to the end: “Each such policy shall require that reaffiliating churches affirm their commitment to the trust clause in paragraph 2503.”

Whatever “spirit of grace” was included in the committee’s report was stripped by this amendment which carried 386 to 304.

6.

From my point of view, one of the most disturbing things was the subversion of the intent of parliamentary processes. I have been one of the Church’s strongest proponents of the value of these processes, sometimes also called Robert’s Rules of Order processes, since most such processes, including the UM version, use Robert’s as a starting point, and as a resource of last resort when the rules of the General Conference don’t apply to a particular situation. The intent of all such processes is clear, and that is that the minority must be provided a reasonable opportunity to voice its position, and the majority must be allowed to determine the outcome of the process. Since these processes only apply to a body that is intentionally deliberative this is an important concept, since it must be assumed that by being given voice the minority will have an opportunity to persuade members of the majority to change sides. When this intent is circumvented, parliamentary processes break down and are not effective. This happened repeatedly at GC20/24. In one instance petitions were duly removed from a Consent Calendar. Similarly in another instance petitions were removed from the list of petitions scheduled for no action by virtue of having failed in the legislative committees. These petitions were bundled together for plenary action without debate. This was intended to and was successful at stifling dissent and silencing the minority. I recall no similar process’s having been used in the reverse. Instead, I remember at the contentious General Conference 2019 clergy delegate Mark Holland’s having stood at the microphone in the closing moments waving his handful of amendments to what he said were various pieces of legislation promoted by the Traditionalists and saying that it was his intent to amend and amend and amend in order to stifle the process. My memory might be faulty, but I don’t remember that any of his ideological opponents disputed his right to access to the process.

7.

There was much greater use of immediacy at GC20/24 than has been the case in the past. Unless otherwise specified in the legislation, action taken at a General Conference goes into effect on January 1 of the year following the year in which the General Conference meets. Much of the legislation at this GC was specified to become effective at the close of the General Conference. This has the feel of being a sort of in-your-face flouting of victory. It says, “Not only did I win, but I’m bringing home the spoils of victory right now.”

8.

Few things will characterize the triumph of Progressives at GC20/24 in the way that the new Judicial Council does. This Judicial Council is now dominated by persons who are prominently members of the Progressive wing of the Church. That hasn’t been true of the JC since Tom Matheny died after his more than 30 years of service as a member, much of that time as President of the JC. This was way more than a reversal of the turn in the Traditional direction the JC took with the election by nomination from the floor of prominent Traditionalists Jim Hollsinger, Keith Boyette, and Mary Daffin in 2000. The left leaning of the membership is signaled strongly by those who were elected to be the JC’s officers: Susan Henry-Crowe, President. Øyvind Helliesen, Vice President. and Angela Brown, Secretary. There is no more prominent Progressive in our Church than Dr. Henry-Crowe. She has just recently retired from being the General Secretary of the General Board of Church and Society, the Church’s social action agency that has strong historical ties and relationship with the Methodist Federation for Social Action.

9.

And speaking of the General Board of Church and Society, that’s the agency that proposed to GC20/24 the substitution of an entirely new set of Social Principles for the existing Social Principles. Prominently among those was a new ¶161. In relevant part, here’s what was replaced:

¶161.G) Human Sexuality—We affirm that sexuality is God’s good gift to all persons. We call everyone to responsible stewardship of this sacred gift.

Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are affirmed only with the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

That’s the old. Here’s what was adopted at GC20/24 on petition from GBCS:

¶161.C. Human Sexuality

We affirm human sexuality as a sacred gift and acknowledge that sexual intimacy contributes to fostering the emotional, spiritual, and physical well-being of individuals and to nurturing healthy sexual relationships that are grounded in love, care, and respect.

Human sexuality is a healthy and natural part of life that is expressed in wonderfully diverse ways from birth to death. It is shaped by a combination of nature and nurture: heredity and genetic factors on the one hand and childhood development and environment on the other. We further honor the diversity of choices and vocations in relation to sexuality such as celibacy, marriage, and singleness.

We support the rights of all people to exercise personal consent in sexual relationships, to make decisions about their own bodies and be supported in those decisions, to receive comprehensive sexual education, to be free from sexual exploitation and violence, and to have access to adequate sexual health care.

Please notice that what’s so prominent in the new version by its absence is the historic commitment of the Church to include monogamy as necessary for the Church’s approval of sexual relationships.

It is impossible for me to overstate how offensive this change is to Traditionalists, and it was adopted on a vote of 523 to 161, meaning it was overwhelmingly supported.

10.

The issue of reparations to African Americans for the harm that lingers from their experience with enslavement in America is complex. GC20/24, as recommended in Petition 20619 from Angela Brown, now the Secretary of the Judicial Council, adopted as Calendar Item 370 a proposal “That every congregation write a letter of support for the passage of House of Representative Bill 40 and Senate Bill 1083.” I’m pretty sure that last entry is supposed to be Senate Bill 40, since SB1083 has to do with something else altogether. But in any case, both bills propose to create a Commission “to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans.” A parallel Brown petition, 20741, CI 534, which provides that, in addition to having each jurisdiction study the issue and support the bills in Congress, calls “for each annual conference to establish a reparation plan for each state within its jurisdiction; encouraging state legislators to offer the implementation of the plan through state legislation.” That latter petition was referred to GCORR.

So, what’s the issue and why is this on my list? Well, this is an issue on which Traditionalists and most Centrists separate from Progressives rather sharply, and at least part of the dividing ideology is on the matter of assigning corporate or collective guilt for individual wrong doing. And then there’s the issue of how to categorize those people, an increasing number, who identify as mixed race Black and white. When that’s coupled with the issue of how to pay for any plan, the complexity is enormous and divisive.

11.

The opening session of GC20/24, as is customary, featured an opening keynote address from outgoing President of the Council of Bishops Thomas J. Bickerton. I believe that Bishop Bickerton did precisely what he was there to do and made it clear that the purpose of the Conference as he envisioned it was to enact the agenda of the Progressive wing of the Church, though he used code words to express that. What he said was, “…we propose to move forward in a spirit of hope and embrace a season of reformation. Therefore, we commit to the revitalization of The United Methodist Church.” Reformation and revitalization are wonderful goals, as long as everybody understands and agrees on the direction of the reforming and what it means to be vital. He went on to say, “We have got to rebuild the church and we’ve got to do it together. It was a decision based on the foundational understanding of connectionalism and an awareness of the absolute necessity of accountable relationships, grace-filled unity nurtured and fertilized with a commitment to being connected together.”

And then came the statement that clinched the deal. Bishop Bickerton said the following:

Are you here to work for a culture marked by compassion, courage, and companionship? And it causes me to genuinely ask, and this is as genuine as I can be: If you can’t agree to that, what are you doing here anyway?

Maybe, maybe, just maybe, you’re in the wrong place. Because my sense is that we are here not only because we love our United Methodist Church, we are committed to moving it forward with renewal, revival, and a reclaimed sense of purpose. And if you are not committed to that, a positive narrative of who we are and where we are going, you might just be in the wrong place. And perhaps, just perhaps in love we might just ask you with integrity that you just leave us alone to do our work.

The explicit text says if you’re not committed to moving the Church forward, then he is inviting you to leave. The implicit subtext is that he’s got a very specific understanding of what it means to move the Church forward–what a positive narrative is of who we are and where we’re going. If your notion of what it means to move forward is not the same, then you’re invited to leave.

This address did, indeed, serve as the keynote for the entire Conference.

12.

This last item on my list is the one I find most troubling. Very early on, like as much as a year before the Conference opened, it became apparent that there were huge obstacles to many of our delegates from Africa in being able to attend GC20/24. And this must be understood in the light of the fact that the reason provided to the Church by the Commission on the General Conference for the final postponement of the Conference to April and May 2024 was the fact that it could not guarantee that enough of the African delegates would be able to get visas and make travel arrangements in time to attend. This is a quote from the COGC’s press release in which the third postponement was announced:

“We engaged in a fair, thorough, integrity-filled discussion of the alternatives,” said Simpson. “The visa issue is a reality that is simply outside our control as we seek to achieve a reasonable threshold of delegate presence and participation. Ultimately our decision reflects the hope that 2024 will afford greater opportunity for global travel and a higher degree of protection for the health and safety of delegates and attendees.”

You can find that whole document by following this link.

This announcement was made more than two years before GC20/24 was to be scheduled to convene. The place and time of the postponed GC20/24 was announced on November 4, 2022, in the document you can find by following this link.

So, not only did COGC know for more than two years that the Conference would be held in 2024, it knew for about a year and a half where it would be and precisely when. It also knew that the principal presenting problem would be the attendance of the delegates from Africa.

Yet here we were in Charlotte, and, as best we can determine from the numbers we’ve been provided, somewhere between 30% and 35% of our African delegates were not seated, most of them because of the problems that were known way ahead of time to be salient.

And that illustrates another feature of this topic. Despite repeated inquires about the number of African delegates who were not seated, we still have not been provided that information.

At best this is disingenuous. It might be nefarious.

Photo Credit

Lonnie Brooks has served as a lay delegate or reserve delegate to most UM General Conferences since 2000. He is a member of St. John United Methodist Church of Anchorage and has served on four general church agencies and committees.