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.
David,
ReplyDeleteNo one on "the other side" ever claimed that Central Conferences could not leave. They knew all along about the BOD provisions allowing CCs to leave. They did claim that local churches in CCs could not disaffiliate the same way a lot of US churches were able to do, which is true. Yet, true to form, you and your ilk consistently misrepresented the argument in disingenuous opposition pieces against extending disaffiliation to CC local churches.
Local churches in the CCs do have the right to leave the denomination. Annual conferences are allowed to work out arrangements and they have done so. In my annual conference (Switzerland-France-North Africa) This has happened in the past for various reasons and this has happened in recent times over disagreements concerning LGBTQ+ inclusion. Example: After nine local churches in France had decided to leave, the annual conference worked with them to define the modalities.
DeleteThis is not a special right granted to my annual conference but something every annual conference in the central conferences is allowed to do.
No, Christine. Local churches having a *right* to disaffiliate was a unique feature of p. 2553. There is no other BOD provision that gives local churches any kind of *right* to disaffiliate. If local churches are at the complete mercy of their ACs to leave as you describe, it is prima facia not a *right*. But you probably knew that, and as such, are probably misrepresenting arguments (cf. my original comment).
DeleteD.T. you are simply incorrect. You don't need to search hard to find the GMC celebrating churches leaving the UMC to join the GMC in multiple countries. They cannot use 2553. They can use other mechanisms.
DeleteYou will not find GMC folks celebrating individual CC local churches leaving. You will find them celebrating Conferences leaving. There is no mechanism by which CC local congregations are given any kind of right to disaffiliate. Cut the stuff, David.
DeleteYou're wrong. https://globalmethodist.org/kenyan-congregations-join-global-methodist-church/
DeleteAnd what BOD provision did they utilize to disaffiliate?
DeleteYou said it couldn't happen and that I would not find GMC people celebrating. It is happening, they are celebrating. I'm done with the conversation.
DeleteAs to your fourth point: if they are still an official UMC annual/central conference at the time ratification of regionalization is being voted on, they may still need to be taken into account when it comes to the approval threshold. I'm not aware of anything in church law that would allow for excluding them from the final accounting on ratification. (Open to being corrected on this point.)
ReplyDeleteI think you are correct that there is nothing that would allow their vote to be excluded. I would argue that ethically they should simply not vote, knowing that they are leaving.
DeleteRegionalization must go thru all UM Conferences. And regionalization must be passed by an aggregate threshold of 2/3rds of all Conferences. There is no provision to allow otherwise. If a Conference is still UM in 2025, they not only get to vote, they must vote and their vote must be accounted for in the threshold. So your attempted shaming of those CCs to get them not to vote or to frame their voting as a bad-faith action lacking integrity is completely irrelevant and a moot point. Again, cut the stuff, David.
DeleteA person with a conflict of interest can choose to abstain from voting. It's not the case that they "must" vote. It is the case that they must be allowed to vote.
Delete2/3rd aggregate of all Conferences is required to ratify regionalization. If Ivory Coast is still a UM Conference in 2025 when ratification of regionalization is being worked thru, can't just say Ivory Coast need not be accounted with regard to the 2/3rds threshold.
DeleteIt's 2/3 of the number of people voting at annual conferences. If the members of the annual conference choose not to vote then they just aren't counted. No different than if a pastor or a layperson in a US annual conference chooses not to vote.
ReplyDelete