January 23, 2024
By Rev. Dr. Scott Field
Ah, the diminutive preposition! Such a small literary fragment, so easily overlooked, and carrying such distinctive meaning. A preposition is a word governing a noun or pronoun and expressing a relation to another word or element in the clause. The power of prepositions came to mind recently concerning the two major issues that are coming before the UMC General Conference.
The Commission on General Conference reports that 1,100 legislative petitions have been submitted for consideration at the UMC General Conference, April 23 – May 3. Out of all of these the Wesleyan Covenant Association has just two primary concerns: regionalization and disaffiliation. Both, in our understanding, relate to the majority of United Methodists in Africa. And there are two seemingly irreconcilable approaches to how matters of regionalization and disaffiliation will impact United Methodists in Africa.
Those two approaches can be summarized by which preposition best describes the aim of the legislation.
Just to review:
Africa is a continent, not a country. The African continent is about three times the size of the USA. United Methodists in Africa are organized in three Central Conferences, thirteen episcopal areas covering thirty annual conferences in twenty-six countries. There are a variety of voices, perspectives, commitments, hopes, and fears among the diverse United Methodists in Africa. Africa has or shortly will have the majority of all United Methodists in the world.
Despite this diversity, currently there seems to be just two approaches to how the matters of regionalization and disaffiliation will impact African United Methodists overall. And this is where the appropriate prepositions are so relevant.
The Wesleyan Covenant Association, among others, advocates for the future of African United Methodists to be decided by African United Methodists.
Others, largely the administrative leaders, bishops, and progressive advocacy groups in the US, want to decide the future for African United Methodists.
One legislative pathway allows African UM congregations and annual conferences to choose whether they will remain United Methodists or not. The other pathway forbids consideration of whether or not they desire to remain part of the United Methodist denomination. The proposals to cut off any option for disaffiliation presumes African United Methodists cannot be trusted to make their own decisions.
The WCA’s other primary concern, regionalization, is a proposal to segregate voices, values, and votes of African and other Central Conference United Methodists. Not all of the details on regionalization have been agreed to at this point, but dividing the UMC into regional units is largely promoted as an equitable “contextualization.” The “elephant in the room” on this proposal is that same-sex marriage, for example, will be affirmed in some regions while it is forbidden in other regions. This predictable outcome leaves the United Methodist Church “united” in name only. Regionalism is a third attempt at organizational change to keep things administratively connected despite irreconcilable differences in theological commitments, moral understandings, and social teaching. Regionalization has failed at two previous General Conferences.
Regionalization decides for African United Methodist how far and for what matters their voices and votes will be allowed; it is selective disenfranchisement. Rejecting regionalization, on the other hand, commits the United Methodist Church globally to be fully and freely informed by the voices and votes of its Central Conference members.
Our Fair for Some Fair for All campaign presumes that fair-minded United Methodist delegates to the General Conference are for the Central Conferences to have their futures determined by the United Methodists in the Central Conferences…whether they choose to remain in the UMC or not.
To be sure, the UMC General Conferences of the recent past have been particularly influenced by the votes of the Central Conference delegates. Many would agree that the vote of the Central Conference delegates at the Special General Conference of 2019 was determinative in passing the Traditional Plan. Depending upon your perspective and commitments, that was either a very good thing or something so egregious as to never be allowed to happen again.
The effort to deny the option of disaffiliation to Central Conference United Methodist congregations and annual conferences as well as the proposals for regionalization seem aligned around that second response to the 2019 General Conference: traditionalist delegates from Africa must never again be allowed to determine the future of the UMC.
Am I just making this up?
Perhaps. But several dynamics tend to portray Central Conference United Methodists as a “problem”, rather than a gift. Three brief examples:
- Why have invitation letters from the Commission on General Conference been either slow to arrive or have yet to arrive at all? Duly elected delegates outside the USA cannot get visa interview appointments without the letter of invitation. For first-time visa applicants, the opportunity for an appointment is now long past. The outcome will be that some of the African delegates will be unable to travel to the USA for the General Conference; the number of delegates at the conference may be reduced, the number of votes needed for a majority or super-majority will also be reduced, and the impact of African votes will be reduced. It is likely that the U.S. State Department will be blamed for the slow interview process, or the Covid-19 pandemic will be cited as somehow related to this “problem” for participation by Central Conference delegates. Given the questionable rationale for the third postponement of the General Conference itself, however, it seems reasonable to question whether administrative slow-walking has been employed to muffle the voice and vote of traditionalist African delegates.
- The United Methodist News Service is functioning as a propaganda outlet for UMC administrative leaders and their legislative efforts. Multiple news pieces explaining regionalization, stories on local communities overcoming the heartbreak of disaffiliation by planting a new UMC, and what seems to be a studied refusal to lift up voices of dissent and opposition, suggest UM News Service is part of the partisan effort to steer the outcome of the General Conference. This is understandable, of course, since United Methodist News Service is supported with apportionment dollars, but it might also be expected that the UMNS would report on behalf of the whole church and the diversity of perspectives within it.
- The MainstreamUMC advocacy group, completely aligned with the regionalization agenda, seems to be saying that because the UMC in the USA provides most of the funding for the UMC globally, the UMC in the USA should be exempt from the impact of non-US delegates to the General Conference. I’m honestly not entirely clear on their perspective, but it certainly seems that the point is: “The USA has the money so the USA is entitled to call the tune.” You can read the whole piece here.
In one thing I give three cheers for Rev. Dr. Mark Holland, Executive Director of MainstreamUMC. He writes, “Seriously, in this day and age, what organization stays together through coercion?” (Click link above).
Precisely!
Let the future of United Methodist congregations and annual conferences be chosen by the United Methodists in those congregations and conferences. No organization stays together by coercion.
Agreed.
With thanks to WCA Regional Coordinator Ed Rodarmel, here is a brief video asking UMC General Conference delegates to support our African sisters and brothers is their desire to choose their own future. What is fair for some should be fair for all.
You can view the “Will You Help Us?” Video here.
If you agree and would like to help support our Fair for Some Fair for All Campaign, here is a link that provides information and an opportunity for your partnership.
Thank you!