Reconciling Ministries Connection

A week ago I attended the Reconciling Ministries Connection in Nashville put on by the Reconciling Ministries Network. The primary reason for the event was to allow progressives to gather before General Conference in May. Here are my notes of the various sessions. The whole thing was less than 48 hours long. Previous gatherings were labeled Convocations and were a day or so longer.

Though the event happened a week ago I didn’t post earlier because I spent the intervening week with family in Louisville, where I also attended a handbell festival.

The opening worship service included photos of maybe half of the congregations or groups that declared themselves to be reconciling since the General Conference in February 2019 approved the Traditionalist Plan. Even with just half it was a long slide show! Membership jumped about 20% in the last year.

Rev. Grace Imathiu presented the Bible study. She started by saying she had been asked by a Muslim friend whether there were any verses in the Christian Bible that incited violence. It was the same question Imathiu had asked the friend about the Koran five years before. That question prompted this study.

Imathiu compared Luke 14:16-24 to Matthew 22:1-14. In the Luke story Jesus tells a parable of a person who gave a great dinner. The original guests made excuses and didn't come. So the host sent servants into the streets and lanes of the house to bring in the poor, blind, and lame until the house was filled. This story is frequently seen as God offering his bounty on everyone. If the intended people don't want it he'll give it to those who will accept it. The hero of the story is the host.

But the Matthew story, though following the pattern, is quite different. It isn't some person hosting a dinner. It is the king hosting a banquet for the wedding of his son. We know what kings are like. It may look like an invitation, but it is an order to attend.

And when the invitees offered excuses the king was enraged and declared war, killing all of them. The poor were brought in as substitute guests. The guests were given a garment to wear. The king saw one person not wearing the prescribed garment and threw him out.

Imathiu reminds us of several things. In the manner of kings the banquet hosts is an authoritarian. He demands total agreement. Is this God in the story? He can't be! He is wielding power, not love. The replacement guests would have been terrified!

And here is a guest who refuses to conform, who is resisting. He was forced to the banquet, but refused to conform to the demands of the king that all must conform to his wishes. Yeah, he was thrown into “outer darkness” but that's where he came from, that was his home, those were the circumstances he knew. It is also where God is.

So who is the hero of this story? Not the violent king. It is the person who refused the garment, who resisted the king's authority. Imathiu urges us to cast off the garment of supremacy.

In the hands of supremacists, which the church frequently is, this passage will highlight the king and his demand for obedience, rather than the one who resists.

Rev. Kennedy Mwita told the history of the Moheto United Methodist Church in Kenya where he is senior pastor. This is the first reconciling church in Africa. The church was founded in 1998. It became a safe space for girls facing genital mutilation. They advocate for the end of gender violence.

This culture rejects intersex. The church provided shelter for a mother and intersex child and worked to reconcile them with family. Intersex was Mwita's entry into studying LGBTQIA.

In the African part of the church bishops have been removed with they start mentioning LGBTQ. So Mwita was afraid because he was district superintendent and does LGBTQ training with his churches. He was disappointed with the actions taken by GC2019.

Imathiu (who is from Africa) helped the Moheto church become reconciling. Some people left the church, new people joined. Mwita was relieved of his job as DS.

Mwita says that his earlier views of LGBTQ people were based on no information. He reminds us that Africa is not all the same.

We divided into two parts to allow better conversation. I was in the part with Rev. David Meredith, who was part of the mediation team that came up with the protocols of separation, legislation for splitting up the United Methodist Church to be acted on during GC in May. He talked about how the team was assembled and what they came up with.

Meredith started by saying General Conference is set up as win/lose. There is a vote. One side is in the majority. The other side isn’t.

But mediation is different. Compromise is a part of mediation.

There were five competing interests at the table: traditionalists, centrists, progressives, central conferences (those outside the US), and the US bishops. A miracle: every groups got some of what they fought for and gave up some as well.

Starting after GC19 several groups proposed legislation on how to split the denomination. By July some had noticed that these proposals had no input from those outside the US, which is 40% of the membership.

When the group was assembled all they did was refight the battles of GC19. After a couple rounds of this they did two things: asked for a mediator and changed the membership of the group. This time they added LGBT people, which is how David Meredith was asked to join. Also in the group was Jan Lawrence, director of RMN.

Each person in the group had a support group with whom they tested positions being discussed. Some of these were people from the first group membership.

By the time they were done all aspects of the protocol received unanimous agreement.

Some of the major points of agreement: The United Methodist Church would continue as a denomination with new Methodist denominations having freedom to separate. This was an important point because some conservatives wanted to dissolve the denomination entirely. In addition, churches would not be forced to decide (though they recognize the situation of a progressive congregation would have to decide to leave a traditionalist annual conference). There would be no forced sale of denomination properties, which left $120 million of liquid assets available for negotiation.

The progressives in West Ohio Conference called for a vote of separation. Yes, progressives. They did it so they could control the schedule. They specified there must be a time of study, I think six months, rather than holding a vote to withdraw the next day. Bishops recommend that churches don't take action for six months.

Meredith said that probably only 3-4 annual conferences will split from the new progressive denomination.

The Wesleyan Covenant Association is setting itself up as the body to receive the traditionalist congregations that vote to leave. But their rules may convince small churches to stay in the progressive denomination. WCA may have a plan, and are trying to convince people theirs is the only plan, but traditionalist bishops are proposing other plans. Much of this is because the WCA theology is not Methodist, but Baptist!

There are congregations who think the post separation church won't be liberal enough. They are considering another new denomination, which is allowed under the protocol.

The protocol was announced after the deadline for individuals to submit legislation to be considered for General Conference. It is not too late for annual conferences to submit legislation. So an annual conference in the Philippines approved and forwarded this protocol of separation. The Michigan Annual Conference is about to do the same. The Sierra Leone Annual Conference will also soon vote. (Both the Michigan and Sierra Leone votes have now happened. Michigan approved forwarding the protocol to GC by a vote of 927 to 92. The vote taken in Michigan was to forward the protocol, but did not include language saying they also endorsed it).

As I attended various breakout sessions there were other sessions for RMN members who are GC delegates to explain the protocol of separation and its various pieces in greater detail.

After lunch I attended a breakout session led by the Connectional Table. Rachel (didn't catch the last name) represented the CT. Izzy Alvarez represented the overseas church.

The CT is a group of 64 people from all parts of the international church and from all the boards and agencies. The CT has been working on a revision to the international structure since just after the 2012 General Conference.

The current structure is different for the US and for other areas of the world. I could get into a lot of detail, but won't. It essentially means other parts of the world have a say in US issues and the structure has aspects of colonialism. Revising the structure to a regional designation improves equality in the various parts of the world and means the non US parts don't have to wade through the half of the GC legislation that is US only (such as pensions or hymnals).

Shortly after the CT completed their restructuring plan the areas outside the US copied most of it, added their own points and presented it as the Christmas Covenant (named for when it was announced and echoing the Christmas Conference that established the Methodist Church in America in 1784). The CT said, sure, go for it.

The protocol of separation calls for this regional equality, but doesn't specify legislation to accomplish it. Both the CT plan and the Christmas Covenant provide this legislation. Both will go before GC in May (there wasn't time to withdraw the CT proposal). Rachel of CT says this is good because it allows two chances to get it passed. The consensus seems to favor the Christmas Covenant.

The second breakout session I attended was titled “Vision of the United Methodist Church in the 21st Century. It was a panel discussion of five young leaders. Dan is a pastor in Atlanta and also in seminary and is transgender. Henry is the youth pastor in Birmingham, Alabama and is genderqueer. Ashley is a licensed local pastor of three small churches in rural Montana and is lesbian. Scott is an associate pastor in Dallas. Bridget is the director of the Methodist Federation for Social Action, living in Detroit, and is lesbian. They were asked a series of questions, some by the moderator, some by the audience. I may indicate who said what by using their initial.

What is the role of the clergy? It will vary by setting. The laity will have to do a lot of the work. Since churches will likely be smaller pastors may not be able to get a full salary from the church and may need to be bivocational. A: my town is too small for me to get a second job and three churches take up more than half time anyway. Pastors need to make a clear break between church hours and home hours. Churches should not demand extra time.

How to become an anti-discriminatory church? Pastors need to recognize their privilege, help others recognize their own, use privilege to lift up marginalized voices, protect minority leaders, and on occasion keep quiet so minority voices can be heard. Be aware that Christianity has been used for oppression. Challenge power structures. Build relationships. Talk about what it means to be diverse, don't settle to just look it.

What does risk taking leadership look like? A: my appointment is a risk! I've gotten hate mail, but also lots of God moments. B: coming out. D: coming out to the congregation. Even though they had a lesbian pastor his coming out made LGBTQ issues more real to the congregation. H: be authentic and that can be risky. When they came out their congregation rejected them. However, they ended up assigned to a reconciling congregation and says this appointment is great.

What are your thoughts on the current system that appoints pastors? A: a guaranteed appointment doesn't mean the situation will be healthy and safe for the pastor. B: this system doesn't handle ineffective clergy. H: I benefited from having a guaranteed appointment, but an ineffective pastor can kill a struggling congregation. D: Some conferences are becoming more transparent in their appointments, some even allow a pastor to apply for an open position.

What are your thoughts on house churches, small congregations that meet in someone's house? The denomination will have to plant new churches because the coming split will leave voids that need to be filled. The “church in a bar” model is growing. The church structure can be revised – not every congregation needs its own group to run finance, art, communications, and other things. These can be pooled among congregations. Buildings can be too. Not having a trustee committee frees people up for other work.

But don't give up on church buildings! Large buildings can offer a wider range of programs. Some people need a church building. The building is a hub from which to work in the community. It is an anchor, which is both good and bad. A facility is a privilege, know when to let it go.

How healthy do you see your church? How do you avoid a culture of oppression? D: be authentic. Find those who are toxic and help them with whatever is causing them to be toxic. Know who in the laity are on your side. H told the story of a trans woman in a male prison. She heard they was out and contacted them for support. This is what can happen when one is out and open. A: learn the history of the town. In many cases parents and grandparents were also in this town. Learning from them makes them more willing to learn from you. S: the church can call for and lead in diversity.

Bishop Karen Oliveto preached in the late afternoon service. She is lesbian and her conference includes all or parts of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana. She made an important point. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was a strong supporter of Thomas Blair, who was convicted of sodomy in 1732. Blair is mentioned several times in Wesley's writings n favorable terms. So the LGBTQ community has been a part of Methodism since the beginning.

The evening session was a discussion of reimagining the United Methodist Church. The first speaker was Lonnie Shafin. He said loving the UMC means reform. There is a commission for the church in the 21st Century. It is looking at such things as how does the constitution need to change, how to right size the boards and agencies after the separation, and how General Conference change from being a scolding finger to a partner in ministry. The commission is not behind closed doors, but is out talking to the members.

Ginger and Junius (I didn't catch last names) spoke next, Together they had written an article for Ministry Matters about the next generation of the church. Some of the things they talked about: We must address systematic oppression and become anti-racist and anti-colonial. We must examine how the current structure support oppression. The commission must have broad inclusion. Too many times we reach for an aspirational goal but allow church protocols to halt our reach. How is this attempt at change going to be different? We shouldn't focus so much on structure that we don't see the people. We should decide what is mission critical and make agencies reflect that. Previously we had just cut budgets without making hard decisions on what is important and what is not.

The discussion was opened to the audience for people to offer suggestions. Here are some of them: There will be tremendous cultural change in the denomination. We should have discussions on what it means to be LGBTQ. What does global equity mean? How do we avoid patriarchy? How can we put a focus on the environment? All agencies and committees need LGBTQ members.

A local church should move beyond the clothes closet and food pantry in their support of the homeless. The best support for homeless is housing first, not shelters. How do we make that happen? This may mean more involvement in local and state government. How might we put homeless into vacant buildings? Many congregations are doing one or more of these things. How do we make them a part of the whole denomination?

The Saturday morning preacher was Rev. Emily Bagwell, who is the RMN Georgia outreach lead. I don't have notes from her message.

The first Saturday breakout session was by US jurisdictions. I attended the North Central meeting. The session was led by Jan Lawrence. We have only two months until GC! What can local churches do to prepare? How can RMN prepare for the May 16 (the day after GC ends) no matter the outcome?

The North Central Jurisdiction (Ohio to the Dakotas) is second only to the West Jurisdiction in progressiveness. Bishops are to be elected this summer and all candidates have already pledged to do no harm. Even so, we should tell our delegates what we want – that we want them to vote for all parts of the protocol of separation.

There will likely be a Liberation Methodist denomination, more liberal than the post separation UMC. Many of these people are members of RMN. There will be RMN communities in new conservative conferences and churches. How can RMN serve them too?

The protocol does not have a way for a church to leave and be independent. Churches should wait for new denominations to form.

No matter how conservative the pastor and church are, if they know the couple they will be asked whether to perform the wedding. If this is a same-sex couple there is currently an excuse. But what happens without that excuse?

RMN and the group Resist Harm have been talking to bishops, including those in the South. They are asking them to suspend trials before GC. They are also asking senior bishops to mentor new bishops in how to handle complaints. New bishops will be elected this summer.

The last breakout session was for progressives in progressive areas. There was a separate meeting of progressives in conservative areas. This was a chance to share ideas in getting local congregations ready for a post separation church.

Blacks see RMN as a white group, only working on the gay issue. So we need to do more on intersection – also talking about the progressive view on immigration and climate.

Be aware that the words that make up the LGBTQ acronym don't translate well to other languages.

Ask what barriers have our churches unconsciously put up against full inclusion and leadership of people of color and others who are marginalized?

Things we can do locally: Host a service of belonging. Perhaps do this before GC. Definitely do this afterward, no matter the vote.

Support delegates and those attending as witnesses through messages.

Support LGBTQ members within the congregation who might harmed by the news. Tell youth (some may not be out!) about the Trevor Project. Give them agency and voice.

See and support lyncoalition.com. Donate to help witnesses with travel expenses. Airline points are much appreciated.

Talk to the congregation about the stakes of this GC and possible outcomes.

Other denominations are reaching out to us as we come up to our important vote. A historical note: When the Lutherans and Presbyterians voted for full inclusion they did so the in Minneapolis Convention Center, where GC20 is to be held!

A sign I spotted in the church talking about the Good Samaritan story: “One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their way on life's highway.” Martin Luther King, April 4, 1967.

The Connection ended with a worship service. After GC19, with its vote of the traditionalist plan, there was a Great Unsilencing. We saw a long series of pictures of churches with signs and symbols of welcome of LGBTQ people and defiance of GC19. Most of the images showed some sort of rainbow flag or banner. One church displayed the message: “This UMC is not that UMC.”

Can we display more flags and banners leading up to GC20?

Heading for a Methodist divorce

Yesterday my pastor began his sermon by saying there are stories in the news that the United Methodist Church will go through a divorce. I’m sure he did this because people asked about it. He didn’t go into much detail.

So I went to one of my favorite blogs on United Methodist news. It isn’t the denomination’s own news service. It’s the UM section of Hacking Christianity, written by Rev. Jeremy Smith, a United Methodist pastor. Yes, he wrote, there is a negotiated Plan of Separation. Bishop Yambasu of Sierra Leone got representatives from both sides together with a professional mediator to come up with a deal. Smith provides links to a press release, denomination news article, FAQ, and the full document of the agreement.

I read through the FAQ, which is posted on the Council of Bishops website. It explains how the mediation process got started, who was involved, how they chose the mediator, and the major points of the Plan of Separation.

I’ll summarize the endgame that Smith lays out:

* A smaller United Methodist Church will remove anti-LGBT language from its policies. Progressives keep that name.

* The Wesleyan Covenant Association (conservatives) will become a new denomination and invite areas (known as Annual Conferences; Michigan makes up one) and local congregations to affiliate with them. There is no penalty for leaving, but they have no more claim on common property, such as church agencies.

* Annual Conferences and local churches who feel the United Methodist Church without conservatives isn’t progressive enough can create their own denomination.

* An Annual Conference can vote to join a successor denomination. If there is no vote the AC remains in the UMC. A local church can vote to do something different than its Annual Conference. If there is no vote the local church belongs to whatever denomination its AC belongs to.

Between now and the General Conference in May the bishops agreed to not act on any complaints against LGBTQ clergy, in spite of the Traditional Plan that went into effect a few days ago. Signatories of the plan agree to support this plan and not support any other plan.

One commenter said this looks a lot the Simple Plan that was not approved at the General Conference a year ago. That plan was essentially the first point in the summary, which would have prompted the second. Why approve it now when it didn’t fly then? Because over the summer many Annual Conferences elected delegations much more progressive than in 2019 – the conservatives won the battle and lost the war. They recognize it is time to exit gracefully.

Smith says the endgame is clear but getting there is bonkers (his word).

General Conference is scheduled for May 5-15 in Minneapolis. However…

At the earliest time possible, perhaps on the first day, the delegates will be asked to vote on the Plan of Separation. If that passes, then that General Conference is done.

As the bishops declare General Conference done, they will call a special one for the next day. Starting on the second day the conservative leaders and delegates will meet separately. Those that remain will consider two proposals:

* Should the remaining UMC be reorganized by regions? Currently, regions (called Central Conferences) in Africa and elsewhere can determine what policies of the global church are not appropriate for their region. But churches in America can’t do that – they must abide by policy set by the global denomination. That gives conservative African churches a great deal of influence on American policy. This proposal creates an American region and redefines how regions relate to the whole.

* Should a new Global Social Principles be adopted? The United Methodist Church was different from many other denominations in our Social Principles that outline views on various social issues, such as poverty, war, and abortion (“There are times when life conflicts with life.” as I remember it). The social principles have now been updated for a global context. I have a copy, but haven’t read very much yet.

And when that’s done, the bishops are expected to close the Special General Conference and call for regional conferences to begin the next day and go through the remaining time allotted. This is when the American delegation can remove the anti-LGBT language.

Yeah, there are a couple problems with this schedule:

* Something as big as the Plan of Separation should be approved by the various Annual Conferences before it officially goes into effect. So the Special General Conference shouldn’t meet until after the ACs vote, not the next day.

* These Annual Conferences voted for delegates to the General Conference, not for Regional Conferences.

* Some progressives have been calling to build a new Methodist denomination from the ground up to eliminate any hint of colonialism in the foundation of the existing denomination. That won’t happen this time. That will have to come as reforms during future General Conferences.

Rev. Smith says he will add more commentary about the Plan for Separation on his website, which is here.