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.