By Simon Mafunda
April 25, 2023
One thing that really gave me serious trouble growing up was the idea of waiting. I don’t think I have quite grown out of it even now. I grew up in deep rural Zimbabwe and visiting the city those days was a pipe dream. I recall one of the best surprises of my life was at the age of 12 when I was promised to visit the city for the first time. The few days that followed before the day of the journey were a rollercoaster of feelings ranging from deep anxiety, excitement, confusion, wild imaginations, and fear that led to adrenaline running crazy in my body. I could hardly sleep as I went through all these feelings encapsulated in anxiety.
As we wait for General Conference 2024 (“GC2024”), I guess many people are going through episodes of anxiety, fear, confusion, doubt, mistrust, and suspicion – to name a few. Having interfaced with so many people from across the expanse of the UMC denomination I have had many affirmations of these various feelings and experiences. This restless anticipation has gripped the entire denomination in its different geographical locations such that it has led to internal and emotional pain and discomfort.
I have come to understand that there are two kinds of waiting: passive waiting (I cannot do anything) and active waiting (doing something in anticipation or even to influence the outcome). The parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) quickly comes to my mind as a simple demonstration of passive and active waiting. In one of his teachings, Dr. Mike Witmer shares about the theology of waiting. He explains that though waiting is subjective, it has an objective focus. For Christians, the object of our waiting is the return of Christ. For this essay I would like to focus on the dynamics at play as we wait particularly for GC2024 (the outcome of which is the object of our waiting). The anxiety, fear, pain, suspicion, etc. can possibly be a direct result of intentional moves by other people (inflicted) or it can be unintentional.
Many African bishops have been on record for not allowing open discussion on the matters now splitting the denomination. As I write this article, I would surmise that over 80% of the average church members in Africa have absolutely no clue as to the goings on within our denomination especially relating to matters splitting the church. People have been told to simply wait for GC2024. Whether this is passive or active waiting, you be the judge, but remember that not doing anything is precisely doing something.
Those who have tried to promote open debate have met with the heavy hand of the authoritative bishops who have now banned activities of both the Africa Initiative and the Wesleyan Covenant Association in Africa. Meanwhile they have been seen to be more graceful and friendly to groups such as Africa Voice of Unity and the newly formed United Methodist Africa Forum (“UMAF”) in which they happily participate. Africa Initiative which is known for standing up for the Traditional Plan in 2019 has been alienated from the GC and CC delegates leaving ordinary Africans confused as to who the bishops want the delegates to work with. As we count down towards the launch of UMAF in South Africa on 21-24 April where one of the African bishops will give the keynote address, some of us will be keen to see whether the bishops of Africa will quiz them on where they got the funding to host this meeting.
Another source of confusion in the central conferences is the application of paragraph 2553 on disaffiliation. We have heard many assertions from bishops and other well-respected leaders in the church that ¶2553 was never meant for Central Conferences. This sounds more like “rules for thee, but not for thee” adage and makes people wonder whether these are not neo-colonialistic traits. This is like suggesting that the “reasons of conscience” were and are only limited to the United States of America. Other bishops continue to argue that ¶2553 will only be applicable to Central Conferences twelve months following the adjournment of GC2024. This is despite the explicit statement in the notes to the legislation that it would take immediate effect.
See the following extract from the 2019 notes:
Addendum to The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, 2016
…The majority of these changes will become effective on January 1, 2020, for annual conferences in the United States of America, and will become effective twelve months after the close of the 2020 General Conference for those in central conferences. The new subparagraph 1504.23, new paragraph 2553, and the amended Clergy Retirement Security Program (CRSP) became effective at the close of the 2019 General conference.
Recently the Philippines wrote to the Council of Bishops (“COB”) seeking clarity on whether ¶2553 could be used in their annual conferences. The response they got from the COB President was that they could not use this paragraph until twelve months after the adjournment of GC2024, which is actually the 2020 deferred session. Surprisingly, it is explicitly stated in this piece of legislation that ¶2553 sunsets on December 31, 2023. It is therefore boggling the mind to imagine how a piece of legislation can be used after it has expired. I am persuaded to think that the COB overstepped their mandate by trying to interpret the meaning of this provision, which is an exclusive duty of the Judicial Council. To this end, absolutely nothing has been done to clean up this mess, and then one wonders whether it was intentional or just an unfortunate oversight.
As we wait for GC2024, several Judicial Council decisions have been made, some of which have been very confusing. For instance, the Burundi Annual Conference requested a declaratory decision from the Judicial Council regarding the constitutionality of bishops serving well past their mandatory retirement ages. This was at the backdrop of the American jurisdictions having been given the green light to hold elections to replace those bishops affected by mandatory retirement. The Judicial Council decided that they did not have jurisdiction over the issue. It’s quite confusing to imagine who is supposed to assist on such matters becausethere is no other authority other than the Judicial Council to serve as a “check” on the bishops.
As we wait for GC2024, the East Africa Episcopal area continues to suffer under an embargo from the General Council on Finance and Administration. This embargo has been in effect for close to 15 years. Almost no ministry funding has gone to East Africa for the past 15 years all because of the misgivings of one person. I will leave out the issue of the 2020 Congo Central Conference Book of Discipline for another article. The already approved plan for five new Episcopal Areas for Africa has encountered some serious turbulence and may end up crash landing. This is despite the fact that Africa is one of the few places where United Methodism is growing in leaps and bounds to the point that its general membership is now more than that of the USA, but with only thirteen bishops against about forty-six in the USA.
This article is far from being exhaustive of the developments in the various geographical regions of the UMC connection. My real concern is that some of these developments are a sure recipe for a repeat of 2019 if not worse. Are our delegates going to be in the right mood and mind-set for a truly holy conferencing session? Unfortunately, we missed the opportunity to resolve our differences in a dignified and mature manner.
It is not too late, however, if we would make a conscious decision to get more concerned with preparing the church for real holy conferencing in 2024. The COB must play a key role rather than be the source of the pain, anxiety, suspicion, confusion, etc. At this point I seem to observe that not many delegates have the appetite to read through those big volumes of the ADCA. Somehow, people are still occupied with the big petitions like the Protocol (despite some of the signers having withdrawn their support) and the Christmas Covenant. In other words, people are more concerned with the direction the denomination will take based on the cardinal proposals.
My understanding is that only the GC delegates have the final decision on these proposals despite all the politicking surrounding them. It is also very dangerous to assume that the tension is over and done with because of the churches that have disaffiliated in the United States of America. This is exactly why we should all plan to have a holy conferencing session. We should be as gracious as we can to one another and accept the reality that there are those who would want to leave and allow them to do so in the most friendly and dignified manner.
At the rate at which things are going we are most likely going to walk away without having resolved anything meaningful at the 2024 session but having caused a lot of harm to each other. This will certainly be detrimental to the mission and ministry that the UMC intends to reclaim, revive and renew.
Simon Mafunda is the Wesleyan Covenant Association’s Vice President for Africa Strategy and lives in Zimbabwe.