General Conference Postponed Again
Photo by Ryoji Iwata on Unsplash
Over the past ten years, longstanding theological disagreements in The United Methodist Church have reached a point of crisis. Differences on the interpretation and authority of Scripture have manifested in the denomination’s stance regarding LGBT marriage and ordination, with the church maintaining the traditional position that loving and welcoming LGBT persons does not necessitate affirming same-sex intimate relationships.
Beginning in 2011, LGBT activists and their allies have increasingly moved to what they call “ecclesiastical disobedience,” refusing to abide by the church’s doctrine and discipline. Bishops and annual conferences have declined to hold accountable clergy who performed same-sex weddings in defiance of church law. They have insisted on ordaining partnered gay or lesbian clergy, again in defiance of church law. The push from the left has taken on the passion and tactics of a civil rights struggle, rather than an exercise in spiritual discernment.
Persistent and increasing resistance to the church’s teaching led the denomination to the brink of separation at the 2016 General Conference. The delegates voted instead to give peace one more try by forming the Commission on the Way Forward. Despite attempts by the Council of Bishops to manipulate the process into affirming a “One Church Plan” that would have allowed same-sex marriage and LGBT ordination while protecting the consciences of those who disagreed, the 2019 special General Conference, called to address only this issue, reaffirmed the traditional stance of the church and increased provisions to hold clergy accountable.
In response, a firestorm of pushback arose, as bishops and annual conferences apologized for the General Conference action and declared their unwillingness to abide by it. More than half the U.S. annual (regional) conferences passed resolutions disavowing the General Conference action. Traditionalists had won the battle, but apparently lost the war – at least in the U.S.
A Move toward Separation
As the schism became more visible and pronounced, various groups tried to fashion plans to resolve the conflict through some type of amicable separation. The most successful of the groups proposed the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. Assisted by renowned mediator Kenneth Feinberg, this group consisted of bishops and representatives of various caucus groups composing traditionalists, centrists, and progressives, as well as participants from Africa, the Philippines, and Europe. This was the first time such a broad-based group had agreed on a plan to resolve the denomination’s impasse. With such widespread support, the Protocol was poised to pass the General Conference in May 2020.
The Protocol would allow annual conferences and local churches to separate from the UMC, retaining their property and assets, to form or join a new Methodist denomination. The Wesleyan Covenant Association has been working to define what a new traditionalist/evangelical denomination would look like. Progressives and centrists have also been meeting to define what the UMC would evolve into, as well as to sketch out a small new progressive denomination.
Enter the pandemic. Due to travel restrictions and limits on large group gatherings, the 2020 General Conference in Minneapolis was postponed until August 29, 2021. Increasingly, however, because travel restrictions have remained in place and caseloads remain high, that date has been called into question.
On February 25, the Commission on the General Conference announced that the 2020 General Conference has now been postponed again until August 29, 2022. At the same time, the Council of Bishops announced it is calling a special session of the General Conference to meet virtually on May 8, 2021, to address technical issues that would allow the church to continue operating until the full General Conference can meet.
The Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation is not currently on the agenda for the special virtual General Conference.
No Regular General Conference
The Commission made the expected decision that an in-person General Conference could not take place in 2021, due to the travel restrictions in place now and expected to remain in place for the foreseeable future. Travel by delegates from outside the U.S. to attend General Conference will likely still be impossible throughout 2021. Those delegates make up 40 percent of the General Conference, and it would be inappropriate to meet without them.
A Technology Study Team met during January to consider the possibility of a virtual General Conference. After extensive research and conversations with representatives of the church outside the U.S., the team concluded that a virtual General Conference, even with a limited agenda, would not be possible. Some of the reasons for this conclusion are:
The technology for linking different parts of the world would only accommodate six to ten sites, meaning that delegates would need to gather in central locations in groups of 50 to 100. Due to travel restrictions, both inside and outside the U.S., such travel appears unlikely or impossible.
Some of the sites for gathering outside the U.S. do not have reliable electricity and Internet service, meaning that particular sites might not be available at the time the General Conference is supposed to meet during the day, and that their ability to interact could be severely compromised. Travel restrictions limit the ability of technical teams from the U.S. to travel to the sites to set up the required technology. It would not be ethical for the General Conference to meet unless all delegates have equal ability to contribute and participate in our decision-making processes.
In the wake of problems at the 2019 General Conference with improper voting, there needs to be a way to assure the identity of delegates and reserve delegates in order to guarantee the integrity of the process. This can only be effectively ensured by the presence of trained staff and volunteers from the Commission. Travel restrictions would inhibit the ability of staff and volunteers to attend the sites outside the U.S.
Some have expressed concerns about undue influence being exerted on delegates to vote certain ways. The only way to mitigate against that is for neutral observers to be present, which travel restrictions again would inhibit.
As one who promoted the viability of a virtual General Conference, reading the report of the Technology Study Team convinced me that it is not feasible with current technology during a pandemic. This decision is disappointing, and the situation is frustrating, but I believe it was the right call.
The Special Session
The Council of Bishops proposes that the special session gather on May 8 for an extremely limited agenda. The first task would be to secure a quorum in order for the special session to take action. In light of the above considerations, it is unlikely that more than a scattered few delegates from Africa or the Philippines could attend. It must be acknowledged that, despite the high value on universal participation by all delegates, this special session will mainly include U.S. and European delegates who have access to Internet technology. But this situation is unavoidable in trying to get some of the church’s administrative processes unstuck.
With the knowledge that many delegates could not participate in a deliberative General Conference, the Council of Bishops has limited the proposed agenda to twelve administrative items that it considers non-controversial. These agenda items provide for:
Correcting the accountability process in response to a Judicial Council ruling invalidating the entire administrative process for dealing with ineffective clergy
Allowing the General Conference and central conferences in extraordinary circumstances to be held electronically (Note that jurisdictional conferences are not given the same explicit ability to meet electronically, although the bishops’ press release envisions a virtual jurisdictional conference this summer to act on the retirement of bishops and determine new episcopal areas.)
Allowing the central conferences to meet during the last half of 2021 to determine whether or not to elect bishops this quadrennium to replace those who are retiring (It is unclear whether actual elections would take place then or at an in-person central conference meeting held following the 2022 General Conference. As of now, it appears that the five additional bishops for Africa promised in 2016 are off the table until at least 2022.)
Providing that bishops who reach age 72 are automatically retired and allowing younger bishops to retire at their request, rather than having to wait until a jurisdictional or central conference meets to vote on their retirement
Providing that, if the General Conference cannot meet as scheduled, the budget for the previous quadrennium will be extended until such meeting can occur
Allowing annual conferences to elect quadrennial officers if the General Conference cannot meet as scheduled
The virtual General Conference will also allow the voting on the above items to be cast by paper ballots that would be compiled by mail and the results announced on July 13, 2021. The paper ballots would not allow any amendments to the above legislation. Delegates would simply vote yes or no. Although not all delegates could participate in the virtual General Conference, all 862 delegates could cast paper ballots on the proposed legislation and thus be party to the decisions.
What about the Protocol?
The agenda for the virtual special session of General Conference does not include the Protocol to allow for separation in the UMC. Some have said that such a decision is too important to be made when we are not together in the same room. Further, the items on the special session agenda could not be amended, and some have said they want to make amendments to the Protocol.
Yet the decision about separation requires urgent resolution. Many other decisions, such as the budget and the number of bishops to elect, depend upon how many churches and annual conferences will remain in the UMC after separation. It would be better to make the decision regarding separation before needing to make all these other decisions.
It is in no one’s best interest to prolong this decision. Deciding now would enable the UM Church and the new traditionalist denomination to begin moving ahead in ministry as we come out of the pandemic. Many are ready to act, and deciding now would open the door for churches that are ready to go in a new direction. The Protocol has been discussed publicly for over a year, so the delegates are well aware of what it contains.
It is in the best interest of centrists and progressives that General Conference make a decision now regarding the Protocol. Once traditionalists start moving to a new denomination, it would allow centrists and progressives free rein to change the church’s position on marriage and sexual ethics, as well as enact new structures of regionalization at the 2022 General Conference. If the decision on separation is postponed to 2022, it is likely that these other changes will have to wait until 2024.
The need to offer amendments to the Protocol is not essential. The mediation team negotiated the major terms of the Protocol based on compromise and give-and-take. Changing any of those major terms could jeopardize the carefully balanced agreement and throw the adoption of the Protocol into question. It would be better to adopt the Protocol as negotiated, with the implementation dates extended by one year, which would be possible under the plan of the special virtual session.
The Council of Bishops could amend the call for the special session to include the Protocol, but they are unlikely to do so. By a two-thirds vote, the delegates could add the Protocol to the agenda of items to be dealt with by the special session. Coming weeks will show if this is a viable option.
Hope for the Future
Meanwhile, we look to the Protocol mediation team to provide leadership in continuing its support and promotion of the Protocol. With support across the spectrum, including from bishops, the Protocol can move forward as a positive way to resolve amicably the decades-long conflict in the UMC. In the meantime, traditionalists, centrists, and progressives have been working to clarify the beliefs and structures of their respective denominations after separation.
Whether the decision is made in May or next year, we believe an amicable separation will release the church to be what its members determine. Freed from conflict, both groups could wholeheartedly pursue ministry according to their mission and identity. Energy could focus on mission, and attention to effective ministry would be undistracted by conflict.
Over the past year, we have been learning to endure and persevere. Yes, it is tiring, hard work. It is discouraging at times to see the goal line shift farther into the future, whether we are thinking about the pandemic or the future of the church. The promise remains that God is with us and will never leave or forsake us. Patient endurance and steadfast faithfulness is our calling in this fraught moment.
Rev. Thomas Lambrecht is Vice President and General Manager of Good News.