Christmas covenant

[hedrick]

Groups from the central conferences (i.e. non-US areas) came up with a proposal that hasn't received as much publicity as I would have expected: Delegates offer proposal for church unity | United Methodist News Service

It has three parts:

• Suspension of all actions furthering any dissolution or separation plans and liquidation and distribution of the assets of The United Methodist Church.
• Formation of a U.S. regional conference.
• Establishment of legislative equality for central conferences and U.S. jurisdictions.

This is actually consistent with separation Protocol, since that protocol requires creation of the regional conference in order to accomplish anything. My biggest concern about the Protocol had been whether Central Conference delegates would support it, since it would mean giving up their ability to control the US. I also wondered whether they'd be willing to stay within a denomination in which the US branch removed rules against ordination of gays. If there's actually good central conference support for the Christmas Covenant, I think it's a good sign for a resolution.

 

[Methodized]

What I am getting from news from the Central Conferences is growing support both for the Protocol and for the idea of create a Regional Conference for the USA.

The word I hear from people in the know is that Central Conferences do not want to leave the UMC and see the Protocol and Regional Conference as a way to stay in but get decisions about the US out of their hair while continuing to minister the way they feel led in their context.

For example the Filipino Bishops have come out publicly supporting the Protocol. Also note that it was a Central Conference Bishop from Africa who brought together the group that created the Protocol.

 

[hedrick]

Does formation of a regional conference require a constitutional amendment?

I'm going to answer my own question. The answer is yes, but there's a proposed stage 1, which would create a committee with legislative authority, including dealing with adaptable disciplinary provisions. That only requires a majority vote of the GC.

However the text of the resolution makes it sound like the GC has to endorse the committee's decisions. (https://www.umc.org/-/media/umc-med...hash=EBC9DC690112F5C036A3CB3E88DA54B57D3BA2FA) That would appear to delay any actions until the next GC, and it's not clear that the GC would actually accept the only proposal that actually matters.

 

[Methodized]

Does formation of a regional conference require a constitutional amendment?

I'm going to answer my own question. The answer is yes, but there's a proposed stage 1, which would create a committee with legislative authority, including dealing with adaptable disciplinary provisions. That only requires a majority vote of the GC.

However the text of the resolution makes it sound like the GC has to endorse the committee's decisions. (https://www.umc.org/-/media/umc-med...hash=EBC9DC690112F5C036A3CB3E88DA54B57D3BA2FA) That would appear to delay any actions until the next GC, and it's not clear that the GC would actually accept the only proposal that actually matters.

If the Protocol goes through I believe the regional plan will eventually go through. Once the WCA splits off it changes the voting considerably, particularly when I'm hearing a lot of support from Central Conferences to go along with it.

There are at least several reasons for them to go along with it. The Central Conferences aren't feeling the love from the WCA that they would need to go with them. They aren't feeling that they would get the same kind of financial support that they enjoy with the UMC. The Central Conferences now have some autonomy to vote on things separately from GC and the regional plan gives them deniability for decisions that are just made for the US. They can say the don't agree but don't get stuck GC after GC being in conflict with the US.

The support of the Protocol from Good News, WCA, Reconciling Ministries Network, Uniting Methodists, and Mainstream Methodists give the Protocol clout that no other proposal has ever had.

If passed, it will help us avoid years and years more of rancorous debate, lawsuits over property, splintering into many more small groups, and huge losses in funding for non-US ministries.

I believe the Protocol has a much better change of passage than any proposal put forward in the last decade or more because of left, right and middle support.

 

[hedrick]

How long will it take to get implemented?

 

[Methodized]

How long will it take to get implemented?

I expect this to be a multi-year process even if all goes exactly as planned. Most Annual Conferences would vote on their affiliation this year. (Iowa has a proposed vote in October 2020.) But churches are given up to four years to vote if they choose to vote and take their own property with them.

Note that churches only need to vote if they disagree with which denomination their conference chooses to go with.

I do believe it is possible that a another special GC will be called (if the Protocol passes) to remove the language in the Discipline related to homosexuality. As it is being discussed now, all language would just be removed meaning that, for example, same sex wedding would be up to the pastor (as all other weddings are now by Discipline) and ordination of LGBTQ+ candidates would be up to the Board of Ordained Ministry in each conference.

I honestly believe we will have a some conservative churches that will stay in the UMC because being conservative doesn't always mean you are willing to leave your home denomination.