The Stakes Are Higher in 2019 than We Thought

Scholarly Essay Examines UMC Constitutional Crisis

by

A United Methodist Insight Editorial Analysis

Copyright 2018 by United Methodist Insight

The stakes for The United Methodist Church at the special General Conference in 2019 rose appreciably higher this week with the publication of a 50-page scholarly article by two of the denomination’s most experienced jurists. In the words of the authors, the Rev. Dr. William B. Lawrence and Dr. Sally Curtis AsKew:

“Not only is the denomination on the verge of choosing whether it remains institutionally united; it is also on the verge of deciding whether a connectional church that is built with a constitutional polity is viable for ecclesiastical life anymore [emphasis added].”

In laypeople’s terms, events leading up to the 2019 General not only have challenged the denomination’s unity as a religious institution, they also have violated its form of governance to the point of near-collapse, according to Drs. Lawrence and AsKew.

Their full essay, titled “Constitutional Methodism in Crisis: Historical and Operational Perspectives on Divisions Threatening United Methodism,” appears in Methodist Review: A Journal of Wesleyan and Methodist Studies, a widely respected open-access academic journal available to anyone willing to register for free online. In this writer’s opinion, after reading all 50 pages twice, the meticulously researched essay should be read by all delegates to the 2019 General Conference, by all the denomination’s leaders, and by anyone who cares about the future of The United Methodist Church. What follows here are highlights that most impressed me about the article, which is both deep and broad in its documentation of Methodist history, the church's current state, and implications for United Methodism's fate.

Experienced leaders

For those who may not know them, Dr. Lawrence and Dr. AsKew are well suited to their topic. Former dean of Perkins School of Theology and professor emeritus of American church history at Southern Methodist University, Dr. Lawrence was elected to the Judicial Council in 2008 and served two terms, including four years as its president. A graduate of the University of Georgia Law School, Dr. AsKew was elected to the Judicial Council in 1988 and likewise served two terms. Then, with a master’s degree in information sciences, she became its secretary from 1996 to 2008, when she was employed as the first clerk of the Judicial Council, a post she held until 2016.

In other words, Drs. Lawrence and AsKew have served The United Methodist Church in positions of highest authority. I’ve met both of them through the years of our mutual service in the church. I’ve found their integrity, impartiality, and capacity to assess the state of the church beyond reproach. That’s what makes the warning they sound in their article so critical: as two of our most reputable and experienced leaders, they are attempting to alert us to the full scope of what’s at stake at the 2019 General Conference.

From the perspective of a United Methodist layperson, the Lawrence-AsKew article may seem arcane and challenging, considering that it attempts to encapsulate 210 years of constitutional Methodism in 50 pages (with 99 footnotes!). Nonetheless, the article justifies the effort it takes to read and understand because it lays bare something that many United Methodists including me have feared for some time:

All three of our constitutionally established leadership bodies – the General Conference, the Council of Bishops and the Judicial Council – have violated the United Methodist constitution in attempting the last-ditch unity effort known as A Way Forward. Those violations now threaten not only the denomination’s institutional union, but also whether it can continue to exist as a body shaped and operated under a rule of law.

General Conference’s creation

For what little consolation it is at this point, Drs. Lawrence and AsKew confirm what many United Methodists, including this publication, have contended from the start: While the Council of Bishops may have chosen its members, the Commission on A Way Forward is and always has been a creation of the General Conference. In essence, the Council of Bishops usurped the authority of the General Conference by claiming and controlling the commission as its own.

Among other things, the Lawrence-AsKew assessment means that the Commission on A Way Forward could – perhaps should – have been subject to the same operating rules as all other General Conference legislative committees, including that of opening meetings to the public. But that’s not all, as the authors continue:

“The General Conference authorized the creation of a Commission and asked the Council of Bishops to name the members of the Commission. However, to what body, under the Constitution, is the Commission accountable? The Council of Bishops and the General Conference are separated constitutional entities in United Methodism. It is possible that the General Conference, the Commission it authorized, and the Council of Bishops have allowed the report to take a pathway that the Constitution does not allow. It is conceivable that the Council of Bishops has claimed authority—which it does not have under the Constitution—to modify the report. It is also possible that the Council of Bishops does not have authority to submit its revision of the Commission’s report as a legislative proposal to the General Conference. It is possible that the whole process has transgressed the constitutional separation of powers [emphasis added].”

So, after two years and thousands of dollars invested in a process that violates our own rules of governance, it appears that we’re losing the very essence of who we were created to be in our attempt to stay together as one church.

More than Way Forward

The constitutional crisis facing United Methodism encompasses more than the Way Forward process, as Drs. Lawrence and AsKew outline:

  • “The Council of Bishops, after naming the members of the commission, assumed responsibility for recommending legislative and constitutional changes that the General Conference should take from the commission, thus appearing to claim legislative authority that is constitutionally reserved to General Conference.
  • “The Judicial Council questioned the consecration of a woman who was elected to the episcopacy at a jurisdictional conference because she was (at the time of her election) married to another woman— even though she was eligible for election as an elder in good standing in an annual conference. Thus it appeared to grant itself authority to intervene in judgments about clergy that are constitutionally reserved to annual conferences and authority to intervene in judgments about elections of bishops that are constitutionally reserved to jurisdictional or central conferences.
  • “The Council of Bishops expressed ‘dismay’ about the outcome of voting by the annual conferences on constitutional amendments that had been approved by the General Conference, questioned the ‘motivation’ that led to the defeat of two amendments, and promised to rely instead on laws in the Discipline (which are not equal to what is established constitutionally) and also on Social Principles (which have neither legal nor constitutional authority).
  • “The Secretary of the General Conference, after the Bishops cited ‘dismay’ at the results of the voting, declared that the text of one constitutional amendment was not the text that had been adopted by the General Conference two years earlier; so, instead of being defeated by the annual conferences, a corrected version of the amendment will be circulated for a new round of voting by annual conferences.

“In summary, the General Conference does not appear to trust its ability to enact legislation that unifies the church; the Council of Bishops does not appear to trust the process for approving constitutional amendments; the Judicial Council does not appear to trust the constitutional authority of annual conferences to make judgments about clergy members or of jurisdictional conferences to make judgments about consecrating bishops; and the annual conferences cannot trust the accuracy of words on which they are voting.”

There it is: mistrust in The United Methodist Church has become so rampant that our leaders are violating church law in efforts to thwart, rather than obey, the structures of our church government. While the Lawrence-AsKew article focuses on the legal challenges within United Methodism, the underlying spiritual and political reality can be seen by anyone with discernment: the question of whether to accept the range of human sexuality merely forms the “presenting issue” for the deeper struggle for power and dominance in the church – constitution be damned!

These are but a few of the legal and operating issues put forth in the Lawrence-AsKew essay. One issue stands out: By documenting how confusing and contradictory the United Methodist Book of Discipline has become, Drs. Lawrence and AsKew highlight how we’ve legislated against one another rather than legislating to fulfill the church’s mission. Their examples and conclusions reminded me of the story of Jesus in the desert; we have been tempted by the Adversary who offered us the rule of an earthly dominion, and we failed the test. Now we’re tearing apart one another and our beloved denomination to possess and control what rightly belongs to Jesus, the Christ: the Church.

Make time to read “Constitutional Methodism in Crisis: Historical and Operational Perspectives on Divisions Threatening United Methodism” as soon as possible. Ponder deeply its evidence and interpretations. Discuss it with your pastor, your congregation and your General Conference delegates. Then pray for God to forgive us our pride, our greed, and our lust for power, and show us a way out of the labyrinth in which we’ve imprisoned ourselves.

Cynthia B. Astle serves as Editor of United Methodist Insight, which she founded in 2011.