March 5, 2024
By Rev. Dr. Scott Field
It’s easy to forget that the upcoming United Methodist General Conference (April 23 – May 3) is the 2020 General Conference, even though it is now actually 2024. And this will be the Minneapolis General Conference, even though it is to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina. These contradictory oddities might be hard to explain to outsiders, but Methodists are used to this sort of thing.
Without question the hosts from the North Carolina and Western North Carolina Annual Conferences of the UMC are planning an extraordinary experience of Southern Hospitality in Charlotte. I’d like to suggest that, as part of that hospitality, the coming General Conference also retain a cultural tradition from the “Land of 10,000 Lakes”. It’s the Minnesota Long Goodbye. If you are not familiar with this cultural mainstay of the Upper Midwest, you should get your google on (one explanation here).
I will not invest my word count outlining either the Nine-Step or Seven-Step versions of the Minnesota Long Goodbye. Let me simply say that when friends and family leave one another up north, there is no “here’s your hat, what’s your hurry?” rush to the door. Taking leave of one another takes time. Perhaps we should recognize this at the coming General Conference, too.
Understandably, United Methodist bishops want to “turn the page” and leave this disruptive chapter of congregational departures behind as quickly as possible. The progressive/liberationist/centrist UM political activists list “stopping disaffiliations” as one of their three legislative goals for the General Conference. Whether the delegates, bishops, activists, and denominational administrators want to deal with it or not, however, attempting to dispatch the reality of congregational departures in a “New York Minute” will be more than inhospitable; it is unjust.
Disaffiliation is not the entire “reality” of United Methodism in 2024, but it is certainly the most notable feature. A quarter of UM congregations in the US have left at this point. Nineteen disaffiliation-related petitions will be considered at the upcoming General Conference. Legal proceedings involving disaffiliation underway currently involve a handful of UM Annual Conferences. Central Conference United Methodists (Africa, the Philippines, and Europe) have been denied a process to consider disaffiliation if they so choose. The page cannot be turned, and the future cannot be engaged, without taking disaffiliation into account.
So, why should the General Conference extend a disaffiliation pathway?
Three reasons come to mind immediately:
Who is proposing the legislation to extend disaffiliation?
The most comprehensive recent proposal comes from Africa (20125-CO- ¶ 2553).
The current pathway for congregational disaffiliation (par. 2553) has been reserved exclusively for United Methodists in the USA.
“Disaffiliation is available only in the United States. United Methodists in the United States make up about half of all United Methodists worldwide, with U.S. congregations representing closer to two-thirds of all congregations in the denomination worldwide” (UM News Service).
Denying the option of disaffiliation to Africa seems particularly ironic. The Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation, widely regarded at the time as a way to resolve ongoing conflict in the UMC by allowing an amicable separation, was the initiative of UM Bishop John K. Yambasu of Sierra Leone before his tragic death in August of 2020.
The Central Conferences (Africa, the Philippines, and Europe) have been denied the agency extended exclusively to United Methodists in the US. General Conference delegates can correct this omission by approving an extended exit path for congregations and annual conferences that might want to consider it. Yes, it will prolong the season of disaffiliation; but better a longer goodbye than overshadow the future of United Methodism with an enduring injustice that can be corrected now. Will the General Conference allow Africans and other Central Conference Methodists the same freedom of conscience allowed to members in the US?
Who are these “disaffiliators”, anyway?
The “disaffiliators” are not poachers, insurgents, or “conference crashers”. For all of us, the United Methodist Church has been our denominational home. There are no Presbyterian, Baptist, or Lutheran congregations attempting to leave the UMC. We’re part of the same family of Wesleyans.
We have a long history of not just formal church membership but deep personal relationships with others in our families, local churches, and annual conferences. We have poured our presence, prayers, money, time, hopes, and dreams into the United Methodist Church. Coming to a decision to leave is not haphazard, impetuous, or mean-spirited. Don’t believe the politically incendiary rhetoric: all of this is painful for both those who remain in the UMC and those who leave. The pathway of prayerful discernment and, in some cases, disaffiliation is never undertaken lightly. If the “disaffiliators” might no longer be considered “brothers and sisters” in the UMC, they/we are still at least cousins in the Jesus Mission.
Faithful UMs may come to the decision that they no longer can, in good conscience, remain within the UMC. It may be over sexuality, or the collapse of governance, or the recognition that a half-century of internal conflict, while apparently engaging for the partisans, has kept the UMC from fulfilling its mission. For these and other reasons, a congregation may prayerfully determine the pathway to its most fruitful and faithful future includes disaffiliating from the UMC.
Taking the time to extend the option for disaffiliations allows us all to part with one another in peace. Why would we treat the people we love and care for in any other way?
Prepared for What’s Next?
The third reason for approving a continuing pathway to disaffiliation isn’t about correcting the injustice of how paragraph 2553 provisions have been denied to Africa and elsewhere or even valuing the dignity and integrity of those who choose to leave. It is a clear-eyed matter of preparing to respond to the anticipated consequences of other actions by the General Conference this spring.
After a half-century of denominational conflict and the departure, at this point, of a quarter of UM congregations in the US, the centrist / progressive / liberationist network of the UMC will likely achieve its long-held legislative goals: rid the UM Book of Discipline of “traditionalist” perspectives on sexuality, marriage, and ordination while setting priorities, policies, and budgets to align the denomination with a decidedly progressive agenda. The proposed regionalization plan is, from one perspective, an attempt to deal with the anticipated residue of theological, moral, and missional conflicts through a looser organizational and administrative structure.
One of the consequences of choosing these progressive priorities for the UMC overall is that some centrists and traditionalists remaining in the UMC will want to leave. Unfortunately, these same people may have been assured by their bishop or District Superintendent that “nothing would change at General Conference” or “there will always be an option for disaffiliation if needed” and, consequently, “there is no need for them to rush to meet the paragraph 2553 deadline of December 31, 2023”. Presuming the progressive agenda prevails at the General Conference, these traditionalist and centrist United Methodists may wonder if it is time to go. If the option of disaffiliation is denied, they will understandably conclude that either they have been lied to by their annual conference leaders or there indeed is no longer any place for them in the United Methodist Church.
Will the UM General Conference delegates choose to continue the dynamics of internal conflict by closing the door on any further disaffiliations or release those who choose to leave so that the future UMC can step into its long-desired new beginning?
Taking the time to consider, perfect, and approve a time-limited disaffiliation extension for all seems like a preferred way to allow for peace to prevail. Why would the UM General Conference extend an option for disaffiliation? Better to ask, I think, why would such an option be denied? Denying disaffiliation is not only inhospitable, but simply and clearly unjust. The delegates to the General Conference can choose the path of both integrity and peace by affirming the longer goodbye.
For more information and informative podcasts related to General Conference and the WCA’s Fair for Some Fair for All initiative, click here.