Living in a Time of Change

 In the United Methodist Church, June is a month of change as pastors move to new churches. Following is an excerpt from the chapter on change from my new book, Getting to Good. If this is a season of change for you, take the time you need to let go so that you can grab hold of what is next!

Getting to Good is available for preorder now from Market Square Books. Use the code "Getting" for a 10% discount.

Change and Loss 

Change is not a single event or emotion that we experience. It takes us time to process. The death of a spouse is an immense change. The surviving spouse does not grieve one day and then get on with a new way of living the next. It takes time, sometimes years, to adjust. A person is never exactly the same after this kind of loss. This is also true for changes we view as positive. A wedding is a singular moment that marks the beginning of a new form of relationship, but after my own wedding I remember days of saying to Tracy, “Are we really married?” Intellectually I knew it happened; emotionally it took time. 

It takes time to come to terms with any change, but we experience emotions immediately. We feel sad or happy or angry or scared right now. At this moment. This means change is not something we really experience emotionally. Instead, we experience a variety of emotions throughout the change. Often, the first emotion we experience is loss. This has been my experience with my daughter. I’m sure she has a beautiful future in front of her, including an amazing few years of college. I am genuinely excited for what lies in store for her future. That last word is the key – future. She has not had those experiences yet. I cannot yet celebrate her first day of class, her first college job, her first new friendship, her first college dance performance, her first successful test, because those events haven’t happened yet. Instead, I have experienced many lasts. Her last night as a full-time resident of our house, her last day of the summer job, her last dance performance in high school… I am excited for her future, but right now I grieve the loss of what is now in the past.  

Brene Brown quotes psychology professor Robert A Neimeyer writing, “A central process in grieving is the attempt to reaffirm or reconstruct a world of meaning that has been challenged by loss.” Emotionally, we don’t experience change. We experience the grief of losing what we have left behind. Then we face the challenge of change – of “reconstructing a world of meaning” – so that we can experience the positive of what has happened that is new. We can’t emotionally know or experience that until after we have gone through the loss of what we leave behind. This is why it can be so hard for us to let go. We have to let go of the old before we can experience the new. 

 

Letting Go 

I saw a monkey in the wild for the first time when I was on a mission trip in Nicaragua. A troop of howler monkeys lived near the village we were working in. The children of the village introduced us to the monkeys by demonstrating how they got their name. When the kids howled out to the monkeys, the monkeys enthusiastically returned their call. The monkeys were entertaining most of the time, but there were points where the loud howling became too much. 

Even with the distraction, the howler monkeys were a joyful part of our experience. There are other monkeys in other parts of the world that people view as a nuisance instead of a joy. Villages and towns have encroached on the monkeys’ territory and the monkeys, searching for food and space, steal fruit and other food and terrorize the people. One solution villagers have used is to relocate the monkeys to another area. A simple and completely harmless method for trapping a monkey that needs to be moved has been used for centuries. It’s a three-step process: cut a small hole in the top of a gourd and hollowing it out, put some of the monkey’s favorite treats inside the gourd, and tie the gourd to a low branch on a tree. That’s it. When a monkey investigates the smells of the fresh food, it will wriggle its hand into the gourd to grab the food. The hole that has been carved is big enough for an open monkey hand to go in, but not big enough for a closed monkey fist to come out. The confused monkey wants the food badly enough that it won’t let go. It would rather hold the treat and stay stuck to the gourd than risk letting the treat go, leading to the final step: put the gourd-trapped monkey in a cage and take it to its new home. 

I don’t know if this method of catching monkeys is still used. I do know that we can be a lot like monkeys. We can hold on so tightly to something or someone because we are afraid of letting go. We are afraid of the loss. We are afraid of the change. Holding on tight does not free us, though. It traps us. We lose our freedom to live into the future. If we want to experience the joy that can come from change, we have to be willing to let go of the past. Letting go does not mean forever forgetting any more than the Israelites forgot the Exodus. It means giving thanks for what has been, taking a deep breath, and moving into the uncertainty of what lies ahead.

What the Côte d’Ivoire Departure Means for the UMC

United Methodist News Service reported yesterday thar the Cote d'Ivoire conference has voted voted to leave the United Methodist Church. This is the first conference in Africa to have taken a vote like this. What does it mean for the future of the United Methodist Church?

First, it should go without saying that I'm sad the decision was made. I continue to believe that there is space in the denomination for many different people. Surprised? No. Disappointed? Yes.

Second, those who know the history could have easily predicted that if any conference chose to leave this would be the one. They only joined the UMC 22 years ago. The ties are not very deep. 

Third, you will remember the false claims that were made before General Conference that churches and conferences were unable to leave the denomination. This is more evidence that those claims were, indeed, false. 

Fourth, regionalization has become even more likely to pass. Remember in order for a constitutional amendment to be enacted, it must pass both General Conference and the aggregate number of people voting at annual conference sessions by a two-thirds vote. General Conference is now in the rearview mirror. A conference that has voted to leave the denomination would obviously not have voted for regionalization. While the conference could still technically vote on the amendments since actually leaving the denomination will still take some time, they certainly could not do so in good conscience. 

Fifth, I would caution anyone from reading anything else into this decision. There will be others in Africa and around the world who choose to leave. There is a reasonable chance that one or two more conferences will vote to leave. But the trajectory of the denomination as a whole is still set. We will be a denomination that crosses the continents with room for a variety of opinions.

A Glimpse Behind the Curtain - General Conference 2024

 Following the 2019 special session of General Conference, I wrote a post looking behind the scenes at what transpired. It included a night time meeting in a parking lot and parliamentary maneuvering to protect us from the greatest harms. This is the same kind of post, taking you behind the 2020 General Conference (held in 2024). If you are looking for espionage, it will be far less interesting.

The view from behind the curtain is not much different from in front. I've worked as part of the leadership of a group striving for full inclusion over the last several years. We met privately most evenings during General Conference, but I'm proud to say that had those meetings taken place in plain sight nothing would have changed. 

The day before General Conference began, we took one last look at our vote counts. There is nothing sinister about this. We were not persuading people, we were counting what we believed people had decided so we would know what to expect. Much had been made, and rightfully so, about the number of African delegates who would not be able to attend because of visa and other issues. Some of the missing delegates would have voted with us. Some would not. But the numbers we looked at that Monday night were astonishing. We were confident that we had enough votes to remove the anti-LGBT+ language in the Book of Discipline. The two-thirds vote for regionalization was more questionable. But now it looked like support for regionalization was so strong that not only would it pass, but had every missing delegate been present and voted against it, regionalization would still pass.

The people who were there can tell you that I didn't believe the count. I couldn't say why it was wrong - everything looked like it had been done right - but barring divine intervention I couldn't see how support would be that strong. Maybe it was divine intervention. Two days later when we took the key vote on regionalization it passed by the margin the numbers had predicted. If every missing delegate had been present and voted against regionalization, it would have passed at 68%. A couple myths need to be dispelled here. First, it is not the case that all the missing delegates were from Africa. At this point in the conference roughly 100 delegates were not seated. About 80 of these were from Africa. Significant, yes. More than double the number typically not present. But about 20% of the missing delegates at this point were from other countries including the U.S. Second, Africa is not monolithic. Our math suggests that a majority of African delegates voted for regionalization. 

Traditionalist leaders like those in Good News and the WCA have consistently told us that Africans agree with them theologically. When these groups have done things like hosting breakfast or sharing cell phones with delegates, they insist that they are only informing delegates, not changing votes. Yet in the absence of those voices, the votes did change. Why is that? The information we have is that the votes began to change months ago. It is true that the large majority of Africans hold to the same theology of sexuality as traditionalists in the U.S. We never tried to persuade people otherwise. But the way an argument is framed matters a great deal.

According to groups like Good News, regionalization is all about sex. Allegedly, progressives and centrists in the U.S. want to export a more liberal sexual ethic to United Methodists outside the country. That's not true. What we have always maintained, privately and publicly, is that we want the ability to be inclusive AND we want to stay united with others around the globe even if they disagree. I frame it this way: In 2019 we posed the question to traditionalists, "Can we disagree on LGBT+ inclusion and stay in the same church?" Traditionalists said no. In 2024 we asked the question again. In the absence of traditionalists trying to say it's all about sex, Africans and other central conferences said yes.

Following the Monday meeting and the following vote on regionalization, our "behind the curtains" work at General Conference was really limited to discerning what those who were intent on damaging the denomination were doing. Good News had two poorly attended breakfasts. There were rumors of delay tactics that seemed real at what point but ultimately were never substantiated. There was a failed attempt to attach disaffiliation to regionalization late in the conference. A few days before that, we were told of a proposed deal for the traditionalists to not oppose regionalization in exchange for allowing disaffiliation in the U.S., which nobody in the room would have ever agreed to, and that was it.

I left General Conference at peace. We will still need to work hard to ensure the ratification of regionalization. At the same time, I am confident it will happen. Momentum for regionalization continues to build. Good News and the WCA may still fulfill their promise to work against it. But if it were me, I would be investing in why someone would want to join the new Global Methodist Church instead of in tearing down the United Methodist Church. I hope that's what they do. Regionalization appears to be the future for our governance. It's the right path for us, even setting aside the question of inclusion. It's time for us all to move on, both behind and in front of the curtain.

Regionalization - Refuting Tom Lambrecht and the Africa Initiative

 Earlier this month, Tom Lambrecht of Good News and, soon, the Global Methodist Church traveled to Nairobi to help organize the Africa Initiative in opposition to measures many of us hope to take at General Conference next week. To be clear, the 100-150 Africans present do not represent the continent. No group of that size can represent an entire continent.

The statement produced from the gathering includes five reasons to oppose regionalization. This post will directly refute those reasons. 

1. "Regionalization contradicts our current connectional system that brings together...annual conferences worldwide."
    This is not accurate. Under regionalization, we would still have a General Conference that addresses worldwide concerns. There is a change in which decisions are made by the global body and which are made by regional bodies, specifically within the U.S. Remember that regionalization affirms the central conferences outside the U.S., just with a new name. If regionalization contradicts our connectional system then having central conferences also contradicts our connectional system, and nobody is suggesting we should eliminate central conferences.

2. "Regionalization fragments our one worldwide UMC into several regional denominations, allowing each region to govern itself with its own book of discipline...no region would have a say in what another region believes, teaches, or practices."

    I read this as two arguments. First, that we will have multiple books of discipline and, second, that no region would have a say in what other regions teach or believe. 

    The reality is we already have different books of discipline. As I've shared previously, Bishop Kasap recently called for a special session of annual conference under the authority of the 1990 Book of Discipline. To the best of my knowledge, no other conference even has a 1990 Book of Discipline - it is a translation of the 1988 Book of Discipline from English so that the conference would have one in their own language. In addition, the current Book of Discipline allows central conferences (but not the U.S.) to make alterations to the Book of Discipline. While they might all carry the same name, any time an alteration is made by a central conference it is effectively a new book.

    The argument that no region will have say in other regions is also misguided for two reasons. First, as I already shared, there will still be a general conference every four years that is charged with maintaining our order and discipline. All matters essential to the faith will be settled there. Second, petition #21039, one of the preferred petitions for regionalization, gives the General Conference the power "to legislate what is non-adaptable for regional conferences by a 60% majority vote." In other words, except as protected in the Constitution, a 60% vote of the General Conference can limit the actions a regional conference takes. 

3. "Regionalization is a recipe for fragmenting the gospel, and thereby presenting a distorted Christianity to the world, that contradicts the biblically based liberating message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

    I assume this is a reference to the efforts to change the Book of Discipline's restriction on LGBT+ people. That effort is separate from regionalization. I fully expect the General Conference to remove the restrictive language. If the worldwide church is comfortable with this removal, then regionalization will have no effect on it. If portions of the church are not comfortable with this, then regionalization will give them an opportunity to make an alteration for their region. As United Methodists, what we believe is core to the Christian Faith is contained in our Doctrinal Standards, which will not change and to which all regions will be accountable. 

4. "Regionalization is an economic death trap for the UMC in Africa and other central conferences with limited financial resources." 

     I can say unequivocally that I've heard nobody involved in the effort towards regionalization want to decrease funding to any of the central conferences. It is true, though, that without regionalization we should expect more churches in the U.S. to leave the denomination. That is not what I want; it is an acknowledgement of reality. The true economic effect of regionalization would be more resources to share, not less.

5. "Regionalization would liberalize the UMC worldwide, thus making the denomination biblically and theologically unsafe and unwelcome for evangelicals and conservatives."

    Again, regionalization does not affect what will happen to the current language restricting LGBT+ participation in the denomination. My expectation is that the language will be removed, regardless of whether or not regionalization passes. For a region where homosexuality is illegal, for example, that would be difficult. But with regionalization, that region would be able to put a restriction in place. Regionalization actually provides a protection for areas that are concerned about this.

I hear in these arguments the same thing we have experienced in the U.S. for the last few years. American traditionalists who are committed to leaving the denomination mislead people about the effects of regionalization and removing the restrictive language to encourage others to join them in leaving the denomination. For those who will be in Charlotte, I hope we can connect and speak truth with each other. For those who will not be in Charlotte, I ask for prayers that our conversations and actions will be just and holy.

Regionalization - Objections Answered, Pt. 3

Read Part 1 (Segregation) here

Read Part 2 (it's all about inclusion) here

I recently heard a traditionalist leader in the U.S. say that the true purpose of regionalization is to maintain U.S. control of the denomination. "The bottom line is the U.S. wants to run the Church." This idea is laughable. I literally laughed out loud when I heard it.

Objection #3: Regionalization is About U.S. Control

Let's start with a thought experiment. If the U.S. wanted to control the United Methodist Church, how could it be done? Remember that starting at the next regular session of General Conference the U.S. will not have a majority vote. So certainly if nothing at all changes we will not have total control. How could we change the makeup of General Conference so that we could control the outcome? Regionalization doesn't work. In very general terms, even with regionalization the General Conference will still set budgets and be entirely responsible for roughly 20% of the current Book of Discipline, including all of the parts that are most important like our Doctrinal Standards. 

Perhaps a series of petitions could be submitted to General Conference that would somehow allow a U.S. region to veto decisions of others regions similar to how the United Nations allows five countries to veto any proposal to the Security Council. I don't know if that would be possible for us or not, but I do know no petition like that has been submitted. 

Maybe we could pass something that intentionally offends other countries to the point that they feel compelled to leave. For example, we could pass petitions that require pastors to perform same-sex marriages regardless of local laws or customs. I would not be surprised if a petition like that has been submitted by someone, but I know of nobody who plans to support such an action. 

These aren't viable paths. I can think of only one way to improve the chances of U.S. control. We would have to reduce the number of delegates to General Conference by making it as easy as possible for churches and conferences outside the U.S. to leave. Disaffiliation has harmed us in the U.S. if we infect central conferences with the same problem, then they will have fewer members and we will have more votes at General Conference. That's the solution.

Now let's come back to reality. Who do you know that is encouraging churches to disaffiliate? Is it U.S. progressives and centrists? No. 

I had a brief email exchange a few months ago with a traditionalist leader. He said, "I’m a bit mystified by the all-out push to enact regionalization at this point. Do you not achieve your goals just as well by simply removing what you call the harmful language on LGBT persons? And the removal only requires a majority vote, whereas regionalization is the hard sell needing two thirds." 

He (almost) has a point. If the language removing prohibitions on LGBT+ participation in the denomination passes, and I am cautiously optimistic that it will, and if we in the U.S. want to ensure that we have control of the denomination in this and all other matters, then why try to pass regionalization when it will be difficult to get he required 2/3 majority at General Conference and at Annual Conferences (needed for ratification)? 

 Unity, not Domination

The answer to this question is actually very simple. We want inclusion, period. Yes, we want LGBT+ inclusion. We also want inclusion of people from Germany, the Philippines, Nigeria, DRC, Liberia, Zimbabwe, and every other country that has or could have United Methodists. We want inclusion of different theological perspectives that are in alignment with Wesleyan theology. This is why we are still in the United Methodist Church. We never left, nor did we ever force or ask others to leave. We have consistently said this is a denomination that should have room for all. 

Regionalization puts every region of the Church on the same level. No single region controls the denomination. That is a good thing. Power is distributed. That is a good thing.

One last thought experiment. Imagine the proposals to remove discriminatory language and the proposal for regionalization pass at General Conference and there is a mass departure of churches from outside the U.S. in the next several months, so many departures that we could predict with certainty that the U.S. would once again have a majority of General Conference delegates. What would U.S. centrists and progressives do? If we want control then we would start to advocate against regionalization being ratified by the annual conferences. In this scenario, we could have control of the whole denomination around the world! I don't think that many churches will leave. But if they did, we will not change our position and start arguing against regionalization. Why? Because regionalization is the right thing to do for our Church. It is the right path forward. We must stay united even while forces opposed to the UMC continue to work to separate us.

Regionalization - Answering Objections, Part 2

 Read Part 1 here

Objection #2: Regionalization is all about promoting LGBT inclusion

It is true that regionalization would help those of us in the United States that want to expand LGBT+ rights. But even if that were not the case, regionalization would be a good idea. This is why Scott Jones led the last effort for regionalization in 2008. Jones is now a bishop in the Global Methodist Church and was never a supporter of equality for LGBT+ people. He supported regionalization because it is a better form of governance for the denomination. 

Over the years, General Conference has usually been about one thing: our position on LGBT+ inclusion. Every vote on every issue was made in preparation for the inevitable votes on inclusion. All the delegates had to think, "How will my vote on this effect the vote coming later? So it makes sense that regionalization and removing the language restricting LGBT+ people would be conflated into two parts of the same concern, but they really are two different issues. If removing the language fails, for example, I will still be voting for regionalization. It will still make sense for the U.S. to deal with issues that apply to the U.S. and for each African central conference to deal with issues that apply only to them. It will still make sense for us to have global flexibility in understanding and implementing our shared mission. 

Further, regionalization will actually protect regions of the world that do not want to promote LGBT+ inclusion. It seems likely that the discriminatory language against LGBT+ people will be removed this year. Although I hope this doesn't happen, it is possible that once this language is removed many churches from African countries and some from the Philippines and Europe will choose to leave the denomination. It is unlikely, but possible, that those departures will be large enough that the U.S. will continue to have a small majority of votes at the next General Conference. Without regionalization, that small majority could force a denomination-wide change. With regionalization, each region of the denomination can make their own clear stand.

Regionalization is complicated. There are good reasons a person may choose to vote against it. This is not one of those reasons.

Regionalization - Answer the Objections, Pt. 1

 Taking a break from arguing for regionalization, this brief series will look at some of the objections that have been raised. I don't find them compelling. If you have additional objections, please put them in the comments so we can reflect on them.

Objection #1: Regionalization is Segregation

Because this is the exact language that has been used, I need to start by noting that this is intentionally and inappropriately playing on our racist history. In the U.S., segregation was the 80-year period of legally sanctioned "separate but equal" treatment of African-Americans. Using this language now is yet another trick to try to demonize a group with a different perspective.

Having said that, it is fair to ask whether a regional structure is a way of keeping different groups from around the world from influencing each other. The answer is yes and no. First, the yes

Regionalization does prevent one group from interfering in something that they do not need to interfere with. At this moment, there is intense argument in Nigeria between two factions of the denomination. Should the U.S. impose a solution on Nigeria? Or would it be better for Nigeria to work things out? And if, as seems to be the case, Nigeria cannot work it out on their own then shouldn't United Methodists in Africa work it out? Similarly, does the church in Nigeria need to speak to politics that are internal to the U.S.? I think not. It is true, then, that regionalization does separate some decision making just like every annual conference already has the authority to make some decisions separately from other annual conferences.

Regionalization does not mean all decisions are made separately. There would still be a General Conference every four years. That General Conference would still make decisions for the entirety of the church. It would simply be more limited in its decision making than it is right now. This is not governance by segregation, it is governance by federalism, which many (but not all) of the countries represented in the UMC use.