Worldwide Guideposts on 'A Way Forward': A Vision for the Global UMC

by

Homosexuality is only the presenting issue, a symptom of a complex syndrome of ailments incapacitating The United Methodist Church as it struggles to live into its desire to become a “worldwide” church. Delegates to General Conference, on some level, came to this realization this week as they pleaded for leadership from the Council of Bishops and voted to accept the Council’s proposal for “a way forward.”

The plan defers all 2016 legislation pertaining to human sexuality and allows the bishops to establish a special Commission to study the issue, including every relevant paragraph of the Book of Discipline. The plan also allows for the possibility of a special or "called" session of General Conference prior to 2020.

For any called session of General Conference to be effective, I believe the vision for any way forward needs to be expanded beyond human sexuality. The bishops’ Commission, the Connectional Table, the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, and other entities must confer, collaborate, and cooperate to address the unfinished business of becoming a “worldwide” denomination.

“Worldwide” Ambitions and the 2008 Merger

The UMC has chosen a path of “worldwide” ambition. Yet, General Conferences have repeatedly operated as if U.S.-centered structures and ways of being church together could continue unabated. For example, study commissions over the past two decades on the “worldwide” nature of the UMC have made recommendations, consistently pointing out the need for U.S. United Methodists to gather to discuss issues pertaining to the U.S. context, but to no avail. It is now clear to the majority of delegates that the old ways are no longer sufficient.

A tipping point came in 2008, when General Conference completed its action to absorb the Methodist Protestant Church of Côte d'Ivoire into the denomination’s structures, swelling the ranks of United Methodism by 700,000 additional members. The motivations of this action, laden with power and politics, are complex and beyond the scope of this article. But the effects are now evident. The denomination has yet to deal with the implications of this institutional merger, which it treated as an acquisition. The 2008 merger did not create these issues, but the addition of Côte d'Ivoire tipped the balance.

There were early warning signs that insufficient groundwork had been laid for this marriage of Methodists: General Conference’s surprise vote in 2004; Judicial Council’s subsequent ruling that proper procedures had not been followed; a belated recognition of the need for a global Discipline. In retrospect, it is clear that the engagement announced in 2004 had not been followed up with the standard prenuptials.

The differences between the mergers of 1968 and 2008 are revealing. The Methodist Church and the 750,000-member Evangelical United Brethren Church joined in 1968 to form The United Methodist Church. This union was the culmination of years of planning and preparation, and it took still more years to complete. General Conference met five times within an eight-year span: 1964, 1966, 1968, 1970, and 1972. During a time of preparation, both denominations approved a 307-page Plan of Union, restructured their boards and agencies, determined equitable ways for members of each church to be represented in the new church, and prepared for racial integration.

None of this planning occurred in preparation for the 2008 merger. Imagine the 1968 merger happening with no extra sessions of General Conference, no plan for transformed agencies or equitable representation, no agreement on a shared Book of Discipline, and no determination to dismantle segregated structures within the church. And then imagine reactive efforts every quadrennium following the merger to redress the shortsightedness as different entities within the new denomination offered independent plans for addressing each of these aspects in isolation of the others. Yet, that is essentially what happened in 2008.

The UMC is still dealing with the unfinished business of this union, which highlighted and made more urgent the challenges of becoming a “worldwide” denomination.

A Starting Point

For the UMC to become a “worldwide” church, it must become something new. This metamorphosis cannot be accomplished by attending to this or that issue in isolation. The UMC has tried unsuccessfully to deal with each of the items below piecemeal over the past several General Conferences. However, these issues are interrelated and must be addressed together.

It is clear that the UMC needs to find new ways of functioning as a global entity. New denominational structures would likely be a lot smaller at the global level and more prominent at the regional level.

1. Global Discipline

By 1966, two years before the formation of the UMC, a detailed plan for the new Discipline had been prepared and presented. In the absence of a Plan of Union for the 2008 merger, the UMC is still faced with the need for a global Discipline. Developing a global Discipline takes more than a legislative enactment and has been entrusted to the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters (see 2012 para. 101).

The harder work of developing a global Discipline becomes clear when considering the Social Principles, which is widely recognized to be a U.S.-centric document. To be truly relevant across a “worldwide” connection, the new document of Social Principles cannot simply be a revision of the old (although the existing document could continue to serve the U.S. context). In addition to addressing specific social issues at a global level, the UMC has a need for a theological statement of social engagement, something like a statement of “Our Ethical Task” to accompany the existing statement “Our Theological Task” in the Discipline.

The resulting global Discipline will actually be quite slim, as evidenced by the Standing Committee’s work thus far. Large sections of the current Discipline are being compiled in an appendix called “General Conference Regulations.” (2016 ADCA, p. 1414). A smaller Discipline provides opportunity to think of this book in new and older ways. Drawing upon the tradition of naming this book the Doctrines and Discipline, the UMC might consider including important theological statements, such as This Holy Mystery and By Water and the Spirit, as accompaniments to our doctrinal standards. Other theological statements that have stood the test of time in the UMC might also be considered globally relevant and foundational to our identity. However, this Standing Committee cannot do this kind of work in isolation from other challenges of becoming a “worldwide” church.

2. Global General Conference

General Conference would function much differently with a global mindset. As one observer recently noted, perhaps we have an impossible task in the present configuration, given the number of delegates, languages, cultures, and petitions. A globally aware General Conference would likely include fewer delegates and be less focused on legislation.

A globally aware General Conference would be conducted in multiple languages and be held in locations outside the U.S. Although there are now plans to meet in Manila, Philippines in 2024 and in Harare, Zimbabwe in 2028, what plans have been made for English-speaking delegates to have simultaneous interpretation of plenary proceedings conducted in French, for example? It is no longer acceptable to conduct business only in English for others to interpret. One can imagine something closer to the United Nations than the U.S. House of Representatives.

If General Conference limited itself to only those items that pertained to the global church, it would look much different. Currently, petitions must indicate if they have global implications, as if that were exceptional. In contrast, a global mindset would view that as normative. Petitions pertaining primarily to the U.S. context would need to be dealt with at a separate gathering of U.S. delegates.

3. Regional Structures

United Methodists in the United States need a forum for their own issues. Period.

4. Global Agencies and Regional Agencies

Just as the global Discipline will be a much smaller book than the current Discipline, global agency structures may end up being much smaller, too. Prior to the formation of the UMC, each church restructured its boards and agencies and developed plans for their integration, with guarantees of representation. This led to the large bureaucracy that recent General Conferences have been trying to streamline and pare down.

As global general agencies are streamlined, they may look much different than program agencies as we have known them. Regional structures may be prompted to develop their own program agencies. Would regional agencies need coordination and control from a centralized, global agency? Or would the global agencies assume more of a facilitator role?

5. Translation and Interpretation

General Conference 2016 made a big deal about finding a way to pay for translating the Discipline and the Book of Resolutions into the several official languages of General Conference. This is the tip of the iceberg. Consider websites, news articles ….

6. Power and finances

This is the big elephant in the room. A lot has changed since 1927, when central conferences were first given power to adapt the Discipline to their own cultural contexts. What began as a missional or pragmatic exception now threatens to undermine the democratic nature of the UMC. About 42 percent of the General Conference delegates in 2016 are from Central Conferences. Under the current Discipline, Central Conference delegates vote on legislation at General Conference that is not directly binding on them at home. Furthermore, up to this point, the general church budget has been paid for by U.S. apportionments.

This combination represents a severe imbalance of funding, accountability, and control. The UMC is facing a situation in the near future in which a majority of delegates will vote on legislation that they do not fund and are not bound by. Imagine a majority comprised of central conference delegates voting to allocate the money provided by the minority of delegates from the U.S. This arrangement is simply not sustainable.

Bishops’ salaries, paid for by the U.S., are also a concern in relation to pastors’ salaries and pensions in central conferences. These disparities and the power dynamics they create need to be addressed.

A Journey Together

These guideposts for a way forward are just a few suggestions to prompt conversation. There are many other considerations, too, all of which need to be considered in relation to each other. Within this big picture is a church struggling to find a way forward regarding human sexuality. I promise that attempting to enforce uniform rules to resolve this dilemma will prove a dead-end. Building relationships with each other is our best and only option for unity.

The journey itself will be long and adventurous, perhaps arduous. But if the UMC is serious about becoming a “worldwide” church, it must expect to be made new. And there is no other option than to embark on this journey together, across multiple languages, cultures, and beliefs about human sexuality.

The Rev. Dr. Darryl W. Stephens is director of United Methodist studies at Lancaster Theological Seminary and a clergy member of the Texas Conference. Stephens is the author of Methodist Morals: Social Principles in the Public Church’s Witness (University of Tennessee Press, April 2016).