A couple comments on social media about this series have rightly pointed out that the transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline (BDD) are temporary. The BDD will take effect when the Global Methodist Church (GMC) is officially launched and cease to be in effect when the GMC's convening conference concludes, estimated at 12-18 months following the creation of the new denomination. Why, then, take the time for this critique?
Two reasons:
First, because this is the document we have. There is a second document, a proposed WCA Book of Doctrines and Disciplines, which has substantial differences from the BDD. To the best of my knowledge, it was last updated in 2020 and is not publicly available. Tom Lambrecht, who if both affiliated with the WCA and the GMC, wrote, "Ultimately, the GM Church’s convening General Conference, composed of delegates elected from among those who align with the new church, will have the authority to formally adopt a new, more permanent Book of Doctrines and Discipline. It will undoubtedly build upon the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, the WCA’s recommendations, and other ideas laity and clergy wish to propose." I'm sure this is true. Ideas from both documents as well as new ideas will be shared. But there is a reason that the WCA book is not the one that is being promoted or made available. My understanding is that when it was first shared there was considerable pushback from other traditionalists on several areas. If I was going to join a new denomination, I would want to know the basics of what I was signing on to. The BDD is the best place right now to look for that.
Second, there is a matter of fairness. In the UMC, the Book of Discipline (BOD) is effectively rewritten every four years (at least up until this delay of General Conference we are experiencing now!). We will continue to talk about ideas that the GMC plans to implement - term bishops, lower apportionments, leaner structure, changes to itineracy, etc. Whether in 2022, 2024, or 2028 I fully expect some of these will be written into the BOD. Nevertheless, critics of the UMC will look at the BOD as it is now written. You can find comparison charts now and without exception they begin with what the 2016 BOD says. As it should be. We can't predict the future. So the GMC says they will have lower apportionments. Compared to what? Compared to our current bloated system which undoubtedly will change. I don't fault them for making this comparison even though I think down the road the difference in apportionments will actually be minimal. So if the GMC proponents can critique the BOD, which is fair for them to do, then what document of the GMC should UMC proponents fairly critique? How do we compare and consider the two if one is treated as if it is written in stone and the other as if it is written in jello? Am I considering a denomination with a call system or an appointment system? What will my apportionments actually be? What powers will the bishops really have? These are fair and legitimate questions that need to be asked.
As I've said before, this series is all about helping people see what they are signing up for. If you are considering the GMC, undoubtedly there are parts that concern me which you will love. My bug is your feature. So be it. There may also be parts that drive you away. You can factor that into your decision to join and, if you do join, into changes you would want to make. Or you can simply stop reading what I write and spend your time on something else instead. You choose.
Every institution (inside the Church and outside) has their own flaws and foibles. The organizers and supporters of the IRD/WCG/GMC have certainly been robust in their criticism of the existing UMC. I’m grateful that you have taken the time to read and to offer your reflections on these proposals for the GMC. Thanks David.
ReplyDelete