Buyer Beware: The GMC Book of Doctrines and Discipline, Pt. 8: Financial Implications

 In this final post about the Global Methodist Church's (GMC) Book of Doctrines and Discipline (BDD), I'll look at some of the financial implications for churches that join. The reality is very different from what was originally promised, and should be considered by any church contemplating joining. As I've tried to say throughout the series, these are all cautions. From a theological and/or polity standpoint, you might find the risk well worth it. If that's you, I hope you simply move forward more informed.

Financial Implications

1. "Trust Clause Lite": One of the reasons many churches are excited about the GMC is the promise of no trust clause - you really, truly own your own property. I think there are some legitimate reasons for a trust clause, but I also understand why this would be a strong motivator. The trust clause really only makes a difference if you want to leave a denomination, so from a practical standpoint it won't matter for the large majority of both GMC and UMC churches. If you do decide to leave the GMC, the absence of a trust clause will make departure much simpler - but not 100% simpler. Remember that the practical (not theological) reason for the trust clause today is financial. It's not possible to stop a church (defined as a worshipping community) from leaving. It is possible to make it costly, potentially leaving their building and all assets behind. 2553 in the UMC's Book of Discipline and 2548 both make it much easier (the latter easier than the former, which is why many GMC proponents are advocating for it). Under 2553, the cost to leave is a church's pension liability, two years of apportionments, and other requirements as determined by the Annual Conference (most Annual Conferences have no or very few additional requirements). 2548 has none of these requirements, but a change to 1054.23 mandates that churches disaffiliating in this way must also pay the unfunded pension. However, in the new BDD, 354.6 and 903.3 provide for what I call a "Trust Clause Lite". It is not a trust clause, but it functions in the same way. The denomination will hold a lien on every church's property, which will only be released when a church that chooses to depart has paid its unfunded pension in full. To be clear, this is an entirely necessary clause; I'm neither surprised nor disappointed that it is included. It's important to understand that, financially, this is identical to what the UMC currently has in 2548. 

2. Financial Support Outside the U.S.: Recent General Conferences have asked those outside the U.S. to begin a process of providing financial support for our work together. The UMC will likely continue this. The GMC will not. At least for bishops, 505.2 says U.S. churches will pay for bishops in other countries.

3. Apportionment Reality Part 1: The remaining four points tell the fuller story on apportionments. With great fanfare, the GMC has shared that churches will have a dramatic reduction of apportionments. This is not necessarily true. First, in 349.4a, "General Church connectional funding" is limited to 1.5% of a local church's income. It is important to compare apples to apples. This is NOT the same thing as your current apportionments. This is accurately compared to the portion of your current apportionments that go to the General Church. In my conference (Great Plains), this is currently 3.3% of local church income. This will still be a significant reduction for some churches - it's less than half the current rate. I encourage you to look at actual budget implications. In our conference, for example, what this really means is a savings of $1,800 for every $100,000 of income. It's not nothing - this is real money - but it's not nearly as significant as you might think at first. 

4. Apportionment Reality Part 2: As we've seen in some previous posts, there's also no guarantee this will actually stay the same even on day 1. 349.5 gives the Transtional Leadership Council (TLC) authority to change this number with a 2/3 vote. Even before the first meeting of the new general conference your apportionments could go up. This is reaffirmed in 614.3

5. Apportionment Reality Part 3: The remainder of your apportionments are set by your Annual Conference. This is a little complicated. Feel free to check my math and assumptions. I'm confident but not positive that this is all correct.

• If you are part of an annual conference that chooses to leave (whether this is actually possible or not is debatable and will be decided by the Judicial Council this spring), 349.4c says your apportionments don't change for up to five years. Even then, they may not go down. Hypothetical: A Conference currently has total apportionments of 13.3% of local church income. 3.3% of income is for general church apportionments (see above) and the remaining 10% is for annual conference apportionments. Immediately when joining the GMC, your general church apportionments are reduced to 1.5%, but your remaining apportionments stay the same in perpetuity because they meet the threshold set by 349.4c. 
• If you are not in a conference that leaves for the GMC in masse, 349.4b says your annual conference apportionments will be 5%, so your total will be 6.5%. Note: This is the absolute lowest that you will pay in apportionments. It is most likely less than any apportionments now. It is also higher than the promised 5% that many churches are counting on.
• The previous point also means that two churches in the same conference could pay very different apportionments. Hypothetical: The Texas Conference leaves for the GMC and the Central Texas conference does not. a Central Texas local church choose to go GMC. Their apportionments will be 6.5%. They are assigned by the GMC to the existing Texas Conference in the inevitable shuffling of conference boundaries. The Texas Conference keeps their apportionments, which are higher, the same but the church moving in from Central Texas is guaranteed to pay a lower rate.
• Even with all this, the total cost to churches can still be deceiving. Currently, some annual conferences apportion part of pensions. This amount is not to be included in apportionments and will be, for some conferences, an additional payment. 
• One more hitch to the new system: Annual Conferences pay for their own bishops. This does not change the total amount of apportionments; it shifts the burden from general to annual conference. This means the 1.5% payable to the general church will stretch further while the portion you actually have control over and will most likely benefit you will not stretch as far. If my math is correct and using the Great Plains as an example, this means the apples to apples comparison of General Church apportionments is closer to a decrease from 2.8% to 1.5%. Simultaneously, expenses related to the annual conference's work would increase 5% without any corresponding benefit to the churches of the conference.

6. Your Money or Your (Church) Life: I've tried to be as objective as possible (knowing that I can't be 100% objective). On this one I just can't. There is a long history of traditionalist churches not paying their apportionments as an objection to denominational decisions. Another group of churches don't pay all their apportionments simply because they feel they can't afford to. Most churches pay some of their apportionments regularly but the bulk at the end of the year. Every one of these churches can be kicked out of the denomination. That's right. If you pay less than 100% of your apportionments (349.9), and even if you pay them in less than even monthly payments (349.6 sets monthly payments and 354 says you must follow all of 349) you can be "involuntarily disaffiliate[d]." This seems like blatant hypocrisy and power politics - withhold your apportionments today so that you can save money which we will then demand you pay us as part of the GMC.

This last point is a really good place to stop. If you've read this whole series you have hopefully seen moments of real objectivity and no doubt moments of opinion that you may well disagree with. I started with a few points that I actually really like about the BDD - some things that the UMC could learn from. As I close, I won't feign any kind of objectivity. The new book is called "Doctrines and Discipline." It is a law book. Grace is minimized, even eliminating the fullness of it in the baptismal vows. Diversity of opinion is frowned on, with churches and pastors that diverge even on social issues forcibly removed. I understand that many moving to the GMC believe our "big tent" church is too big of a tent. I disagree, but I understand. What I don't understand is how this "pup tent" church feels true to our theological history. I am theologically progressive on inclusivity of people who are LGBT+. I am centrist on almost every other theological issue. You won't find my arguing with the historical creeds or anything in our actual doctrinal statements. I've openly advocated for remembering the Wesleyan Quadrilateral really does put Scripture first, with three lenses that help us understand it instead of as four equal legs. If I were to go back in my own theological time to an era when I questioned but still affirmed our position on LGBT+ inclusion I believe I would still run from this new denomination. It is true that the current UMC is flawed and must be fixed. This new denomination, in my opinion, solves virtually none of our current problems and creates additional issues. I'd much rather work on the flawed system than ingrain a new denomination with this number of flaws from the start.

Buyer Beware: The GMC Book of Doctrines and Discipline, Pt. 7: Social Concerns

 I've written previously in this series about issues related to inclusion and representation. Five of the six points in this post related to other kinds of social concerns. The sixth is related to inclusion, which I missed on my first reading of the GMC's Book of Doctrines and Discipline (BDD). As you'll see, the GMC doesn't seem to have a clear position on the importance of our social witness in the world.

Social Concerns

1. The Social Creed: To the best of my knowledge, the Social Creed adopted by the Methodist Episcopal Church North in 1908 was the first such statement in Methodist history. It is a well written, orthodox statement that concludes our current Social Principles. Paragraph 202 of the BDD affirms it as, "still remarkably relevant even today," This "relevant" paragraph is neither mentioned again nor included in the BDD. I'm not sure what to make of this simultaneous acknowledgement and exclusion. It could have been an oversight.

2. Social Issues that Matter: Excluding the Creed, our current Social Principles cover 39 pages in the Book of Discipline (BOD). The new section of statements is less than two pages, with only 14 statements. As one who prefers a slimmer BOD, I don't mind a slimmer set of principles. I think this goes too far, but whether this is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder.

3. Not Just Opinions: When I teach on the Social Principles, I say that any individual will likely find at least one statement to which they say, "I'm so glad I'm in a church that says this!" and at least one to which they say, "I can't believe I'm in a church that says that!" The Principles say of themselves that they are not church law. Not so in the GMC. Paragraph 339.16 orders each church to "promote awareness of and concurrence with...policies relative to the Social Witness of the church (paragraphs 201-202)." Via paragraphs 808.d and 808.k, I think this means a person, clergy or lay, could be kicked out of the denomination for promoting a belief contrary to those in the Social Witness. You can be kicked out of the UMC for promoting contrary doctrine, but the GMC seems to expand this to the Social Witness as well.

4. Local Churches and the Social Witness: Individuals can be eliminated; so can whole churches. Paragraph 355 gives the process for a local church to join the GMC. One of the requirements is a vote to "endorse the doctrinal standards and Social Witness...". Part of the significance of this and the previous point is that the Social Witness clearly rises to the same level of importance as doctrine; effectively, it is doctrine.

5. Making Changes: Part Six, section One of the BDD anticipates the Convening General Conference. Paragraph 604 sets the powers of that conference. Throughout the entire BDD, I can find no mention of a voting threshold for any amendments. The only indication that any portion of the BDD would require something other than a simple majority vote is paragraph 109 which, like the UMC, prevents changing the Articles of Religion or Confession of Faith. That is, until we get to 604.14-15. Any change to the Social Witness section or "resolutions dealing with social concerns" require a three-fourths vote. This means in the GMC it will be far easier to change the entire ordination process, the appointment process, tenure of bishops, apportionments, or any of the other hot-button issues (other than human sexuality and abortion) than to add or remove a single sentence from the Social Witness. It is harder to make a change to the Social Witness than it is to amend the Constitution of the UMC.

6. The One I Missed: My last post was on theology and sacraments. If you read that you will recall some surprising changes to the baptismal vows. In my first reading, I missed a glaring one. Our UMC ritual includes a promise to serve Jesus, "as your Lord, in union with the Church which Christ has opened to people of all ages, nations, and races." Some pastors have added additional phrases to make it more inclusive. Some pastors don't use the official language at all in order to make baptism seem more authentic or natural. But this is our official language. Not in the GMC. The baptismal covenant in paragraph 316 makes no use of this or any similar language. To be clear, there are other places in the BDD where the GMC says there will be no discrimination based on race or, at least implicitly, age. I can understand how this could have happened if the liturgy was written from scratch, but it clearly wasn't. It's a bizarre omission. If you have an explanation, please let me know.

If you've been reading along as I've written, we're nearing the end. One last post is planned, and it's a doozy. I've lost track of the number of people who have said they might go to the GMC simply because of how much their church will save in apportionments. If that's you, the apportionments are not what you think they are. We'll also look at what I call "trust clause lite" in the GMC.

Buyer Beware: The GMC Book of Doctrines and Discipline, Pt. 6: Theology and Sacraments

 You will undoubtedly recall that many proponents of the new Global Methodist Church (GMC) claim our division is not about human sexuality but is actually about theology and the authority of Scripture. While I still believe that's overstated - our theology is not changing right now, only our stance on LGBT+ inclusion - it is true there are some differences. The key ones that I see which may surprise you are noted in this post.

Theology and Sacraments

1. Goodbye Quad: The so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral has been relentlessly attacked by traditionalists over the years. They will sometimes quote Albert Outler wishing he had never coined the term. That's not quite correct. Outler said he "more than once" regretted the term. There is a legitimate concern with how how the Quadrilateral is sometimes taught and used. I appreciate Phillip Brooks analysis and approach from several years ago. In short, Scripture is our primary source of authority while reason, tradition, and Christian experience inform how we read and interpret Scripture. Our teaching of how the Quadrilateral functions should be addressed. Perhaps, as Brooks suggests, it should be renamed. The GMC simply does away with it altogether. 

2. Faith and Science: This actually isn't a difference in theology. That's the surprise. Paragraph 202 is the GMC's equivalent to our Social Principles (more on this next time). Point 4 reads, "...we encourage dialogue between faith and science as mutual witnesses to God's creative power." I suspect this is here because of potentially controversial issues like evolution. What's noteworthy is that the sentence exists at all. This is the kind of thing that allegedly sets progressives apart from traditionalists. In fact, scientific advancement is one form of "Reason" that, as noted above, has been excised from the Book of Doctrines and Discipline (BDD). 

3. Infant Baptism: in our current Book of Discipline, paragraph 226 says pastors "shall earnestly exhort all Christian parents or guardians to present their children" for baptism. A parent can opt not to have their child baptized, but they should be encouraged to do so. This is a problem for traditionalists. The large majority of traditionalist pastors in the UMC have no quarrel with infant baptism and, in fact, encourage it. But not all. One United Methodist Church (which I'm not naming here but I have a screenshot of their webpage says right on the internet, "At [name redacted], we baptize children when they are old enough to express their own decision to follow Jesus and understand the meaning of baptism." They aren't even pretending. But because, I assume, the GMC wants churches like this there is no calls for clergy trials for self-avowed, practicing non-infant baptizers. That problem is solved for the GMC because the BDD eliminates the "shall". In fact, baptism of infants and children is endorsed nowhere in the BDD except in the doctrinal standards. To make matters worse, an earlier draft of the BDD did expressly adopt infant baptism ("we believe that God has expressly given to children a place within his kingdom..." but that paragraph was deleted from the current draft. To be clear, children can be baptized in this denomination. It is vastly reduced in importance.

4. Grace is OK: This one fascinates me. Portions of the BDD are taken nearly verbatim from the BOD. Which is fine - if there's no issue with the language just keep it. The baptismal vows should be a great example. I know there is some concern with how baptism is sometimes practice (for example, a pastor baptizing in the name of "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer"), but that is a violation of the language. The language itself if very traditional and orthodox. Yet it is changed. The new language renounces "the devil" instead of "spiritual forces of wickedness". OK, fine. Here's the shocker for me. "Will you obediently keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in them all the days of your life by the grace and power of God?" This seems to replace the current question, "Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Savior, put your whole trust in his grace, and promise to serve him as Lord..." Note, first, the reversal of law and grace. This is a consistent theme throughout the BDD. It is a law book, within which grace makes some appearances. Note, second, that we no longer "put [our] whole trust in his grace". We promise now to keep God's will "by the grace and power of God." Grammatically, it's a small change. Theologically, I think it's significant.

5. Communion: This is nitpicking, but it definitely surprised me. Though often ignored, our current theology teaches that we should receive Communion weekly, or as often as possible. There is no mention of the frequency of Communion in the BDD

6. Communion, Pt 2: Another fascinating point. An earlier draft of the BDD included the statement, "Respecting our concern for those with health issues, congregations may provide gluten-free bread." That has been deleted from the current version. If I was on the writing team, I don't think I would have thought to include express approval of gluten-free communion. You may know that the Catholic church has forbidden it, so a statement affirming the use may be of some value. I wonder how the decision was made, after it was initially included, to now reject it.

That's it. There are some other changes, but truly nothing that struck me as unexpected. In fact, if all of the theological changes were proposed at General Conference as changes to the current Book of Discipline I'd probably vote for nearly all of them (other than those mentioned here). There's not much radical stuff - which is why we shouldn't need to have this conversation about breaking up.

Next time: Earlier I shared four important notes on inclusiveness. Next we'll look at six concerns about social issues, including a flashback to baptism that I just picked up on while reviewing my notes for this post.

General Conference - What Happens Now?

 If you are reading this, you undoubtedly know the news is out that General Conference 2020/21/22 is now General Conference 2024. The news is fresh, but not a surprise. Most watchers fully anticipated that this would be the case, so some early observations seem appropriate:

1. Traditionalist leadership false outrage. Listen to this from the IRD: "This rushed decision ignores how many other major denominational assemblies and international conferences are meeting in person in America this year, how at least half of American annual conferences are back to meeting largely in person, and how even Africa is on track to get Covid-19 under control this year." Rushed? If anything, the commission took too much time! Comparing us to other denominations is fruitless. We are the most geographically diverse protestant denomination. Half of American annual conferences being back in person means another half are not, and the deciding issue apparently was visa availability, not covid concerns. For what it's worth, I was told more than one month ago that visas in Nigeria are backed up to the fall of 2023! The truth is traditionalist leadership was working hard on vaccines and visas for delegates that they believed would vote with them, hoping to get enough of them present at GC22 to accomplish their goals in a highly politicized process.

2. Bureaucratic Nonsense. That doesn't let the Commission off the hook. They met in closed session, which seems to against our open meeting policy, and then sat on their decision for a week. When an organization is in crisis, transparency is even more important. These meetings should have all been open to the media with a public decision announced the same day. 

3. Bureaucratic Nightmare. The completely bizarre organizational reality just became much more bizarre. My understanding is that the decision is to postpone, not cancel General Conference. Theoretically, that means we will hold the 2020 General Conference at the time previously reserved for the 2024 General Conference. Does that mean 2024 will be postponed to 2028? This is not just a theoretical exercise. If 2020 is delayed, then delegations are not reelected. That also, presumably, means that delegates will not be reapportioned based on membership changes over the last four years. Politically, I like that. I'm also not sure it's fair. 

4. The Traditionalist Playbook is clear. As expected, the Global Methodist Church will launch May 1st. You can expect tremendous pressure to join. Here's what else to expect:

• Lawsuits. Good News' accidental release on Wednesday makes it clear that they expect some congregations will go to secular courts (despite clear scriptural injunctions against this which these scriptural purists will choose to ignore).
• Despite their belief that a global conference should be able to meet, they will resist jurisdictional conferences meeting this fall because of fear over who will be elected as bishops.
• Some annual conferences will vote to leave. This may or may not be constitutional and, if it is ruled unconstitutional, I fully expect that some of these will go to secular courts.
• Selective support of "the spirit of the Protocol." We're hearing that, in the spirit of the Protocol, bishops should make it as easy as possible for churches to leave. I agree. I hope that there will also be support for the abeyance but thus far that has been lukewarm.
• They will continue to meddle even as they leave the UMC. This is really fascinating and probably deserves its own treatment. In 2019, traditionalists insisted on passing an exit path for churches that needed to leave. They still haven't taken it. Now, all the traditionalist groups are suggesting churches should leave using a different, easier paragraph in the Discipline that already existed prior to 2019. Simultaneously, they are advocating for passage of the Protocol in 2024 for those churches who have not left by then. It really doesn't need to be this hard. Act in good faith in accordance with the full spirit of the Protocol and we can get this done.

5. What should happen. We have been living in this limbo for two years now. We don't need General Conference to meet for us to all move forward. Here's how we do it:

• Bishops must all reaffirm (or in some cases affirm for the first time) the abeyance against charges for LGBT+ pastors and marriages.
• All parties should adopt the approach outlined in the document A Call to Grace. As a longtime reluctant supporter of the Protocol, A Call to Grace is the right Plan B. Now Plan B is all we have. Bishops, caucus leaders, conference trustees, pastors, and churches are going to have to all work together to avoid a nightmare. But the nightmare absolutely can be avoided. This is the path.
• Jurisdictional Conferences should meet as soon as possible. It's not tenable for our bishops to be serving two-point charges for two additional years even while some bishops are wanting to retire. Jurisdictional Conferences need to meet, and I'm convinced this is allowed under our current Discipline.
• Elect new delegations in 2023. Some of my friends won't like this, but that's OK. I don't think it's reasonable to ask a group of delegates elected in 2019 to act as delegates in 2024. I we have Jurisdictional Conferences, the current delegates should and would be seated. No annual conference should elect delegates in 2022 while churches and pastors are in the middle of deciding whether they plan on staying in the denomination. 2023 elections in all conferences would allow for the dust to settle a little while also acknowledging that we are now living in the beginning of a new era for the United Methodist Church.