separation agreement for UMC

[KagomeShuko]

the ELCA actually did have a major split as soon as the ruling came out where many major churches left to form the North American Lutheran Church.

There was a split. However, church decline in memberships and closing churches isn't just a problem with the ELCA. It is happening with many denominations.

 

[KagomeShuko]

Any new news on this? Separation? Document basically saying they agree to disagree? Something else?

 

[Methodized]

Any new news on this? Separation? Document basically saying they agree to disagree? Something else?

There is a negotiated protocol that we hope will be voted on at General Conference in May. If passed there will be a split that will follow the adopted rules of the protocol where the traditionalist UMCers will form a new denomination which conferences and church can choose to join. Following the split the UMC will become the home of the moderate to progressive wing of Methodism though there may be some far left progressives who may also want to split off and do their own thing, they would be a small group.

 

[seeking.IAM]

If passed, I'm anxiously awaiting the naming of the split-off traditional group. If it doesn't have the word "Methodist" in it, my sister is going to have an apoplexy.

 

[Methodized]

If passed, I'm anxiously awaiting the naming of the split-off traditional group. If it doesn't have the word "Methodist" in it, my sister is going to have an apoplexy.

It is hard to know. I'm a progressive, so my intention is to stay with the UMC if the protocol passes. My experience with conservative split offs or advocacy groups is that they tend to pick a generic name that doesn't contain the previous denomination's name. But I have no idea.

I was at one time involved with the American Baptists. They had a group called "American Baptist Evangelicals" that changed their name to the "Cornerstone Network." To me it sounded more like an insurance company name. And, you'd get no clue as to their origins. I hear that group is now basically defunct.

 

[seeking.IAM]

...My experience with conservative split offs or advocacy groups is that they tend to pick a generic name that doesn't contain the previous denomination's name. But I have no idea...

My sister and I are Methodist preacher's kids, so it would be a real conflict for her to chose between a liberal UMC and conservative "Something-Other" denomination. Obviously that ship already sailed for me.

Like many, she asks why it's the conservatives that have to leave.

 

[Albion]

In other denominations, the conservatives were badly treated, it's true. Here, however, there apparently has been a carefully crafted blueprint for a separation planned out in advance. My thinking, therefore, is that the leaders of the conservative side who worked on that blueprint, that proposal, must have been convinced that it was in their best interests.

They must have explained their thinking somewhere or other, in some publication or on some website, so the answer to your sister's question may be there.

 

[Methodized]

Albion is correct. The conservatives offered to leave. They have been preparing to leave for a while. It is my understanding that the WCA already has a draft for a Book of Discipline for their new denomination.

 

[hedrick]

I think the moderates are blowing it. They need to have a structure already in place for the US region, and be just as prepared a the WCA to make it happen. I'm still not convinced that the US conservatives and the central conferences are going to accept a compromise when they have the votes to continue the chaos.

 

[Methodized]

I think the moderates are blowing it. They need to have a structure already in place for the US region, and be just as prepared a the WCA to make it happen. I'm still not convinced that the US conservatives and the central conferences are going to accept a compromise when they have the votes to continue the chaos.

I'm more optimistic than that because the WCA and Good News both support the Protocol. They wield a lot of influence among US conservatives. Add in that the moderates as well as the Reconciling Ministries network support it and you've got a pretty large coalition.

 

[Tra Phull]

Any chance that there will be a plain old "Methodist" Church again?

As a kid, I was in Dallas Convention Center when Methodist Church became THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH.

Now it seems it will be UN-United...

 

[Methodized]

Any chance that there will be a plain old "Methodist" Church again?

As a kid, I was in Dallas Convention Center when Methodist Church became THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH.

Now it seems it will be UN-United...

I believe it is likely that the UMC will keep the name "United Methodist." The word "United" didn't come from our union between liberals and conservatives. It is from our uniting with the Evangelical United Brethren in 1968. So to drop "United" might look like we were disowning our former EUB members.

That being said, if we went back to a previous name I'd prefer our original "Methodist Episcopal Church" name as it best describes our history and polity.

 

[Dave-W]

It is from our uniting with the Evangelical United Brethren in 1968.

I remember. My mom was EUB. My dad was Wesleyan Methodist.

 

[Methodized]

The Protocol is getting good support from Central Conferences. I'm not going to predict passage. But this has a better shot than the "Way Forward" plan did because it wasn't supported by conservatives.

If the plan goes through what will then be interesting is to see who goes with the WCA, who stays, and if that will lead to a quick revision in the Book of Discipline on marriage and ordination questions.

 

[Albion]

The Protocol is getting good support from Central Conferences. I'm not going to predict passage. But this has a better shot than the "Way Forward" plan did because it wasn't supported by conservatives.

If the plan goes through what will then be interesting is to see who goes with the WCA, who stays, and if that will lead to a quick revision in the Book of Discipline on marriage and ordination questions.

I'm not knowledgeable about the inner workings of the UMC, but I've read some articles about this planned split and it does look as though the traditionalists agreed to a deal that is clearly unfair to them in several important ways. That's EVEN THOUGH the split was occasioned by a particular issue concerning which the traditionalists seem to have held the upper hand in the UMC.

Does someone have a slant on this matter that would explain them accepting a settlement that is weighted against them?

 

[Methodized]

I'm not knowledgeable about the inner workings of the UMC, but I've read some articles about this planned split and it does look as though the traditionalists agreed to a deal that is clearly unfair to them in several important ways. That's EVEN THOUGH the split was occasioned by a particular issue concerning which the traditionalists seem to have held the upper hand in the UMC.

Does someone have a slant on this matter that would explain them accepting a settlement that is weighted against them?

Albion,

I'm not sure what you'd view as unfair in the deal. It is true that the Traditionalists have the upper hand in voting power by combining US Traditionalists votes with Central Conference (Non-US voters). But those who disagree with them (centrists and progressives) actually pay for most of the ministry of UMC. (See explanation below.)

------
The problem is that 2/3rds of the US delegates do not agree with the Traditional plan and are no longer willing to support a situation where the Central Conferences by Discipline get to vote on many of their own rules but the US Jurisdictions don't.

When that rule giving the non-US conferences extra authority was set up the Central Conferences were much smaller than the US and it was created to protect their needed autonomy with their cultural differences. Now that they are much larger and we are in the reverse situation but the US right now does not have the same rights the Central Conferences do to change rules to fit our culture here. Basically Central Conferences have more rights than the US conferences do.

At the same time the 2/3rds of the US Methodists (Centrists and Progressives) who disagree with the Traditionalists plan actually pay for the great majority of the denomination. Particularly this is true since many Traditionalist churches have been withholding or redirecting apportionment for years.

The Centrists and Progressives have made it clear that we will no longer cooperate with policies that we believe are unjust and discriminatory. This became much more pronounced when the Traditionalists imposed draconian penalties for clergy who disagree with the new policy. Right now, by Discipline, I could get in way more trouble performing a same sex marriage than I would for any other infraction of the Discipline including committing some actual civil crime.

I have long known for years that people vote in church three ways. 1. They vote, 2. If no one pays attention to their viewpoint they vote with their money. 3. Finally, they vote with their feet. Right now the Centrists and progressives are at level 2 & 3. We won't pay for injustice and if injustice continues the Traditionalists would end up with the UMC and not enough money to support it.

The truth is that many of the Traditionalists have wanted out of the UMC for years if they couldn't control the UMC and all its resources. The WCA wants out and the Protocol gives them $25 Million in seed money to start their new denomination without what they see as all the baggage of being in the UMC and all that goes with it.

 

[Albion]

Uh...that's quite a lot for me to digest, so I'll just mention some of what I read.

Apparently, the proposed agreement provides for the name of the "liberal" church to remain UMC and continue to hold all the machinery of the existing church. The "conservatives" on the other hand have to create a new church from scratch and with a name that suggests they are the schismatics.

When it comes to a congregation holding a vote to join that new church, it takes only 44% voting "no" to scotch the proposition.

The distribution of the UMC's assets is unequal, regardless of how the division of the congregations works out. The "conservatives" are to get a minority share and of course are cut out of all the extended ministries and related organizations and properties, etc.

So that's some of what I remember reading. It could contain mistakes, which is why my question was put in a very general way.

The Centrists and Progressives have made it clear that we will no longer cooperate with policies that we believe are unjust and discriminatory. This became much more pronounced when the Traditionalists imposed draconian penalties for clergy who disagree with the new policy. Right now, by Discipline, I could get in way more trouble performing a same sex marriage than I would for any other infraction of the Discipline including committing some actual civil crime.

Understood. But OTOH, this paints the "Centrists and Progressives" as the dissatisfied underdogs. That only seems--to me--to confirm the problem I was asking about. Why would the Traditionalists agree to a settlement that was stacked against them when it appears that its the other side that has been stymied in its efforts to pass resolutions, etc.? The answer I think I'm getting is that they are will to pay the price just to be free of the endless distraction of these fights.

Anyway, I thank you for your help. This is an interesting development for Christians generally since the proposed split is so unlike the ones that have occurred in other denominations.

 

[Methodized]

Uh...that's quite a lot for me to digest, so I'll just mention some of what I read.

Apparently, the proposed agreement provides for the name of the "liberal" church to remain UMC and continue to hold all the machinery of the existing church. The "conservatives" on the other hand have to create a new church from scratch and with a name that suggests they are the schismatics.

When it comes to a congregation holding a vote to join that new church, it takes only 44% voting "no" to scotch the proposition.

The distribution of the UMC's assets is unequal, regardless of how the division of the congregations works out. The "conservatives" are to get a minority share and of course are cut out of all the extended ministries and related organizations and properties, etc.

So that's some of what I remember reading. It could contain mistakes, which is why my question was put in a very general way.

I'd have to find the figures again. But my memory is that something like 80-85% of the UMC is payed for by the Centrists and Progressives because the conservatives have been withholding money for years. So, why should they get an equal distribution of assets when their contribution wasn't equal?

Also, the Traditionalists largely don't want the UMC label. They see us has hopelessly marked as liberal by the general public. They want a new name.

They also really don't want all of the machinery of the UMC. They want a much smaller set of agencies. They may not even want a traditional episcopacy. So for them it is far easier to start from scratch than remake the UMC.

Also conservative churches and conferences will be able to take all their assets and property with them if they leave within four years. The denomination actually owns all the property. So this is a pretty generous offer to avoid years of legal fights over assets and property.

As to the 44%, that is actually pretty generous. Most major changes in the UMC take a 2/3rds majority. The Traditionalists wanted simple majorities and the Progressives wanted 2/3rds. The percentage was negotiated.

I would be totally against a church or conference pulling out with a bare majority. If you do you'll just split the conference or local church in two almost equal parts.

I'm sure the plan isn't perfect. But it was agreed to by Good News and WCA (Conservatives) Central Conference representation. (Conservative). Uniting Methodists (Centrist), Reconciling Ministries Network (Progressive) among others. So there is a great deal of buy in across the spectrum.

 

[Albion]

I'm sure the plan isn't perfect. But it was agreed to by Good News and WCA (Conservatives) Central Conference representation. (Conservative). Uniting Methodists (Centrist), Reconciling Ministries Network (Progressive) among others. So there is a great deal of buy in across the spectrum.

Of this ^ I had no doubt. But that simply prompted the question about why a seemingly unbalanced agreement had been accepted across the board by all these different groups and organizations.

What you've explained does explain a lot of that. So, thanks again for the assistance!

 

[hedrick]

My reading is that the WCA doesn't want the current UMC organization. They won't be large enough to fund it, and it is staffed by progressives. They'd much rather than $25M and build their own. The super-majority requirement to leave may end up getting changed. It was something the WCA gave up in negotiations. But again, I'm not sure they want churches that are 50/50. They want to build an Evangelical denomination. That's easier with churches that are committed to their goal.