Fair for Some, Fair for All - Not Just for the WCA

 You may have seen the Wesleyan Covenant Association's new campaign for extending a version of paragraph 2553 to Central Conferences. They have titled the campaign, "Fair for Some Fair for All." 

I don't say it often, but I will here. The WCA is right. What is fair for some is fair for all.

Opportunity to Disaffiliate

It is true that 2553 did not apply to Central Conferences. My perception is that this has to do with a technicality and, unlike the rest of the paragraph, was not the intention of the traditionalists who passed the disaffiliation plan. I haven't seen the legislation that the WCA has proposed. This is important because traditionalist leaders are politically savy and, just like politicians in D.C., they can craft legislation to do more than the stated purpose. For example, they are not calling in this plan to reopen 2553 to the U.S. That would a disaster. Additionally, I've been told the legislation would also let whole annual conferences leave, which was not allowed in the U.S. So I can't promise to support their legislation. 

In fact, I likely won't. You might say, "Isn't that talking out of both sides of your mouth?" The answer is no. Churches in Central Conferences should be able to leave the denomination - and they already can. As I showed here, the Global Methodist Church and WCA have celebrated the fact that churches in Europe and Africa have left. Talking out of both sides of your mouth is saying something cannot happen while simultaneously celebrating that it has happened. 

Opportunity to Govern

One reason churches outside of the U.S. have disaffiliated without the benefit of 2553 is that our denomination is structured in a way that allows for different governance outside of the U.S. Paragraph 101 allows central conferences, which by definition are outside of the U.S., to "make changes and adaptations to the General Book of Discipline to more fruitfully accomplish our mission in various contexts." Effectively, the denomination has said that the way we do things in the U.S. is "normal" and if you are in an "abnormal" context you can make adjustments. A more charitable reading of our history would be that U.S. delegates, which represented a large majority of General Conference votes, recognized that they shouldn't dictate governance to smaller groups in different cultures.

Supporters of regionalization, like me, recognize that in a global denomination there is no such thing as "normal." Most likely, there will be no "majority" continent or country at the first regular General Conference after 2024. There is a good possibility that the General Conference after that will have an African majority. This means that without some form of regionalization United Methodists from outside the U.S. will be able to set rules that the U.S. has to follow but that the people making the rules can adapt. There is no universe in which this is fair. 

What is fair for some is fair for all. It should be possible for churches outside the U.S. to leave, and it is. It should be possible for every region of the globe to adapt to their region, and it is not. 

Fundraising off of Destruction

If you read my blog much, you've likely heard about the 2004 internal Good News strategy document "Options for the Future." The link is to a permanent mirror as the original was taken down after others and I published it.

Since then, I've received pushback from Good News leaders like Rob Renfroe denying that the document was ever discussed and downplaying the truth that the document names the continuing existence of the UMC as a disadvantage to traditionalists leaving the denomination. Good News and their allies are very smart and strategic. Documents like this don't exist by mistake. But if you still doubt their motives, I'm going to go point by point through a recent fundraising email from close Good News, WCA, and GMC ally, The IRD. It's not paranoia if they are really out to get you. Read along:

Dear Methodist friends:

We’re thrilled that the number of exiting churches from United Methodism will top 7650 this month before the deadline, far exceeding expectations.  

   Tooley is not thrilled with the number of people being baptized, the number preaching the Good News, or the number of churches joining the new denomination. He is thrilled with the number that are leaving. He is explicitly thrilled with tearing down a denomination.

Liberal pastor Adam Hamilton predicted there would only be 3000-4500 church exits. We had expected maybe 5000-6000. But 25% of all United Methodist churches have now left the denomination despite all the high hurdles!

It's true that Adam was wrong. I was, too. I expected about 20% would disaffiliate. But there are multiple issues with Tooley's statmeent:

1. While those of us remaining United Mehtodist have been accused of colonialism, Tooley forgets there is such a thing as churches outside of the U.S. The 25% number is NOT all UM's, it is 25% of U.S. churches. The international church exists! 

2. The "high hurdles" that Tooley mentions were allowed for in the legislation that traditionalists passed in 2019, saying it was "the way [we] would want to be treated if [we were] leaving."

3. The full truth is traditionalist leaders have pulled out all the stops to get churches to disaffiliate. They have held membership drives to artificially distort votes, they have allowed misinformation to spread without refutation, and they have advocated for disaffiliation for reasons other than the one reason the 2019 legislation provided for. They have done everything possible to maximize disaffiliations, far beyond what I believed their sense of Christian ethics would allow for, and still 75% of U.S. churches are staying United Methodist.

Praise the Lord for performing this great work!

Some people believe we should negotiate. Some people think we should extend the disaffiliation paragraph like Tooley, Renfroe and others want. Some people still believe progressives and centrists were the ones acting in bad faith when the Protocol failed. Please tell me how we can negotiate when traditionalist leadership praises God for people leaving us. 

This is also a tribute to your work over many years.

This is an important sentence. The work of tearing us down did not begin with the current round of disaffiliations. It did not begin with the 2019 General Conference or the creation of the Traditionalist Plan. It began "many years" ago. They finally said it out loud.

The remainder of Tooley's email is promoting IRD events. Except for one key question he poses. Tooley asks, "How many of us can answer the question:  Why are we Methodists and not Baptists?

I have an answer. Of those staying United Methodist, nearly all of us know we aren't Baptists. But, Mark, when you promote Baptist theology (like churches openly re-baptizing and only doing "believes baptism) and Baptist polity (downplaying the Connection and advocating more of a call system than itinerate system of appointment), this is what you get.