UMC General Conference 2024 Results

[jas3]

Well, this wasn't unexpected, but the 2024 UMC General Conference was everything traditionalists feared and more. Here is a summary of the results of the conference:

A Tale of a New Church | Good News Magazine

A summary of the summary: the Book of Discipline was modified to remove not only the prohibition on pastors living homosexual lifestyles, but on celibacy outside of marriage as well. Pastors can officiate same-sex unions ("weddings") and can do so in the church building. Church funds can be used to promote the acceptance of homosexuality, and can not be used against the promotion of it. The pathway for individual churches to disaffiliate from the denomination was removed.

Needless to say, this is an extremely disappointing result, but again, not unexpected. My heart goes out to those in the UMC who chose to remain, in good faith, hoping for the status quo to be upheld, or at least hoped that any changes would not affect their local church. I know that this sentiment was prevalent in my childhood church, which is why they chose to remain rather than (in their view) preemptively leaving the denomination while the old Discipline was still in force.

 

[AlexB23]

Well, this wasn't unexpected, but the 2024 UMC General Conference was everything traditionalists feared and more. Here is a summary of the results of the conference:

A Tale of a New Church | Good News Magazine

A summary of the summary: the Book of Discipline was modified to remove not only the prohibition on pastors living homosexual lifestyles, but on celibacy outside of marriage as well. Pastors can officiate same-sex unions ("weddings") and can do so in the church building. Church funds can be used to promote the acceptance of homosexuality, and can not be used against the promotion of it. The pathway for individual churches to disaffiliate from the denomination was removed.

Needless to say, this is an extremely disappointing result, but again, not unexpected. My heart goes out to those in the UMC who chose to remain, in good faith, hoping for the status quo to be upheld, or at least hoped that any changes would not affect their local church. I know that this sentiment was prevalent in my childhood church, which is why they chose to remain rather than (in their view) preemptively leaving the denomination while the old Discipline was still in force.

Dang, I am not a Methodist (Catholic here), but this sounds messed up. God help us as a society...

 

[chevyontheriver]

The pathway for individual churches to disaffiliate from the denomination was removed.

Wow! Those that didn't yet get out are stuck with the changes?

 

[jas3]

Wow! Those that didn't yet get out are stuck with the changes?

Yep, UMC churches don't really own their own property due to the "trust clause" in the Discipline:

ask the umc what is the united methodist trust clause | UMC.org

United Methodists join generations before us who built and sustained the church. The trust clause ensures United Methodist ministry continues into the future. Ask The UMC is a service of United Methodist Communications.

www.umc.org

At the 2019 special session of the General Conference, a section was added to the Discipline that allowed churches to leave the denomination and keep their property, subject to a few conditions. That section had an expiration date of December 31, 2023, although the General Conference was supposed to meet multiple times before then and it kept getting pushed back one year at a time.

The push from 2023 to 2024 was a particularly controversial one, because before that, most congregations thought they could just wait and see what the results of the next General Conference would be before deciding whether to leave, but with the push to 2024, they were then faced with the choice of leaving before seeing what the results would be, or sticking it out and hoping that in the worst case scenario, the expired disaffiliation section would be renewed and they would still be allowed to leave. Instead, that section was deleted.

Now, any church wanting to leave is, by the letter of the law, required to give up its property.

 

[AlexB23]

Yep, UMC churches don't really own their own property due to the "trust clause" in the Discipline:

ask the umc what is the united methodist trust clause | UMC.org

United Methodists join generations before us who built and sustained the church. The trust clause ensures United Methodist ministry continues into the future. Ask The UMC is a service of United Methodist Communications.

www.umc.org

At the 2019 special session of the General Conference, a section was added to the Discipline that allowed churches to leave the denomination and keep their property, subject to a few conditions. That section had an expiration date of December 31, 2023, although the General Conference was supposed to meet multiple times before then and it kept getting pushed back one year at a time.

The push from 2023 to 2024 was a particularly controversial one, because before that, most congregations thought they could just wait and see what the results of the next General Conference would be before deciding whether to leave, but with the push to 2024, they were then faced with the choice of leaving before seeing what the results would be, or sticking it out and hoping that in the worst case scenario, the expired disaffiliation section would be renewed and they would still be allowed to leave. Instead, that section was deleted.

Now, any church wanting to leave is, by the letter of the law, required to give up its property.

That is messed up.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well, this wasn't unexpected, but the 2024 UMC General Conference was everything traditionalists feared and more. Here is a summary of the results of the conference:

A Tale of a New Church | Good News Magazine

A summary of the summary: the Book of Discipline was modified to remove not only the prohibition on pastors living homosexual lifestyles, but on celibacy outside of marriage as well. Pastors can officiate same-sex unions ("weddings") and can do so in the church building. Church funds can be used to promote the acceptance of homosexuality, and can not be used against the promotion of it. The pathway for individual churches to disaffiliate from the denomination was removed.

Needless to say, this is an extremely disappointing result, but again, not unexpected. My heart goes out to those in the UMC who chose to remain, in good faith, hoping for the status quo to be upheld, or at least hoped that any changes would not affect their local church. I know that this sentiment was prevalent in my childhood church, which is why they chose to remain rather than (in their view) preemptively leaving the denomination while the old Discipline was still in force.

Just out of curiosity how did the African conferences vote?

 

[seeking.IAM]

Yep, UMC churches don't really own their own property due to the "trust clause" in the Discipline:

That is messed up.

Denomination ownership of buildings in the UMC has been that way for decades, just as it is in some other denominations. The UMC opened the window for churches to leave with their building and then they closed it.

Consider that you are a life-long loyal Methodist who gave a sizable portion of your savings to benefit your church's building project for expansion and perpetuation of its ministry as a Methodist Church. Then five years later your beloved Methodist Church decides to be something else -- let's say become SDA or maybe a prosperity gospel non-denom. You never intended your gift to help build an SDA church or prosperity gospel non-denom. Do you feel your money was used for the purpose you intended? Would you have given it if you had known that was going to happen? Not-for-profits are expected to honor donor intent. If you give $20,000 for a new Baptismal font, your church better buy a new Baptismal font and not a new carpet runner for the center aisle. So, there is some logic, in my opinion, to the UMC's action.

 

[The Liturgist]

Now, any church wanting to leave is, by the letter of the law, required to give up its property.

Now if a conference or district wanted to leave, it is possible they might be able to get away with it, due to the precedent set by the Anglican Diocese of Fort Worth vs. the Episcopal Church, where the Episcopal diocese was able to leave and join ACNA while retaining its properties.

 

[The Liturgist]

Consider that you are a life-long loyal Methodist who gave a sizable portion of your savings to benefit your church's building project for expansion and perpetuation of its ministry as a Methodist Church. Then five years later your beloved Methodist Church decides to be something else

One could argue that this is effectively what has happened with the 180 degree change in the Book of Discipline from the Traditional Plan adopted in 2018.

 

[AlexB23]

Denomination ownership of buildings in the UMC has been that way for decades, just as it is in some other denominations. The UMC opened the window for churches to leave with their building and then they closed it.

Consider that you are a life-long loyal Methodist who gave a sizable portion of your savings to benefit your church's building project for expansion and perpetuation of its ministry as a Methodist Church. Then five years later your beloved Methodist Church decides to be something else -- let's say become SDA or maybe a prosperity gospel non-denom. You never intended your gift to help build an SDA church or prosperity gospel non-denom. Do you feel your money was used for the purpose you intended? Would you have given it if you had known that was going to happen? Not-for-profits are expected to honor donor intent. If you give $20,000 for a new Baptismal font, your church better buy a new Baptismal font and not a new carpet runner for the center aisle. So, there is some logic, in my opinion, to the UMC's action.

Well, I am Catholic, but I hear your point though. There is some logic in denomination ownership, but I feel that this could be left up to a vote by the individuals in the church. If church A votes to leave the UMC (> 50% vote by congregation), then the church has every right to. If church B can not garner 50% of the votes, then it is required to stay for the next 5 years. A vote could be held every half-decade by the congregation.

 

[jas3]

Just out of curiosity how did the African conferences vote?

My understanding is that they were almost unanimously on the traditional side of every vote, but I wasn't following the conference closely enough to look at individual votes. Some of the African delegates released a statement after the conference expressing their disappointment both with the results of the conference and with the mishandling of African delegates' correspondence prior to the conference, which resulted in about a quarter of would-be delegates being unable to get visas in time to travel to the US.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That is messed up.

Actually that is the norm with most groups that have bishops. For example when an Episcopal parish in Ft. Worth tried to leave a Texas diocese there was a huge court battle they lost. Finally they have a building again as Catholics and are growing rapidly. But the bishop of the Ordinariate I’m pretty sure is the canonical order of the new building.

This all works when the bishops are guaranteeing orthodoxy. It falls apart when they don’t.

 

[jas3]

One could argue that this is effectively what has happened with the 180 degree change in the Book of Discipline from the Traditional Plan adopted in 2018.

Yes, and ironically if the trust clause were being enforced evenly and fairly, the churches that were flouting the Book of Discipline prior to last week's changes would have had their property seized. But of course it wasn't, which was part of the motivation on the traditionalist side to add the section that allowed churches to disaffiliate from the denomination.

This all works when the bishops are guaranteeing orthodoxy. It falls apart when they don’t.

Exactly. If it's "rules for thee but not for me" when it comes to the trust clause, the denomination's cohesion is already compromised, which was a significant contributing factor in the UMC's collapse.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The push from 2023 to 2024 was a particularly controversial one, because before that, most congregations thought they could just wait and see what the results of the next General Conference would be before deciding whether to leave, but with the push to 2024, they were then faced with the choice of leaving before seeing what the results would be, or sticking it out and hoping that in the worst case scenario, the expired disaffiliation section would be renewed and they would still be allowed to leave. Instead, that section was deleted.

Now, any church wanting to leave is, by the letter of the law, required to give up its property.

OUCH!

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually that is the norm with most groups that have bishops. For example when an Episcopal parish in Ft. Worth tried to leave a Texas diocese there was a huge court battle they lost. Finally they have a building again as Catholics and are growing rapidly. But the bishop of the Ordinariate I’m pretty sure is the canonical order of the new building.

This all works when the bishops are guaranteeing orthodoxy. It falls apart when they don’t.

Indeed. There is an unfortunate scenario here in Ventura County wherein the beautiful ROCOR parish was taken over by a schismatic Old Calendarist jurisdiction, who sued ROCOR to take possession of the building, but they knew ROCOR would likely win, and so the suit was basically frivolous, however, in a disastrous moment that makes me cringe, ROCOR’s lawyers failed to file a particular document in the case on time and thus the schismatics won a default judgement.

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually that is the norm with most groups that have bishops. For example when an Episcopal parish in Ft. Worth tried to leave a Texas diocese there was a huge court battle they lost. Finally they have a building again as Catholics and are growing rapidly. But the bishop of the Ordinariate I’m pretty sure is the canonical order of the new building.

This all works when the bishops are guaranteeing orthodoxy. It falls apart when they don’t.

That said the former Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth on the other hand won a battle against the Episcopal Church USA in the US Supreme Court to retain their property after joining ACNA.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That said the former Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth on the other hand won a battle against the Episcopal Church USA in the US Supreme Court to retain their property after joining ACNA.

Yes. The same diocese that played hardball with one of it's parishes and kept the building while losing the people in 2012, did the same thing in keeping all the buildings (and maybe most of the people) by leaving for the ACNA in 2008. I guess bishops rule.

Anyhow, that congregation in Ft. Worth is now thriving. The Episcopalian bishop kept not only the building, but the name, so they are now renamed St. Thomas Becket Catholic Church. Back in 2012 it was known as St. Timothy's before the Episcopalian bishop kept the name for himself. It had 63 members back then, actually well over the median population of an Episcopalian parish but definitely not a megachurch. In 2019 it had 65 members and met at the Catholic diocesan offices chapel. Now it is about 550 people, in their own building, and I could see it growing a bit more. Again, not quite a megachurch, but now substantial.

THE SHORT LIFE OF THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF FORT WORTH | VirtueOnline – The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism

virtueonline.org

Our Church

stbecketfw.org

 

[riesie]

Yep, UMC churches don't really own their own property due to the "trust clause" in the Discipline:

ask the umc what is the united methodist trust clause | UMC.org

United Methodists join generations before us who built and sustained the church. The trust clause ensures United Methodist ministry continues into the future. Ask The UMC is a service of United Methodist Communications.

www.umc.org

At the 2019 special session of the General Conference, a section was added to the Discipline that allowed churches to leave the denomination and keep their property, subject to a few conditions. That section had an expiration date of December 31, 2023, although the General Conference was supposed to meet multiple times before then and it kept getting pushed back one year at a time.

The push from 2023 to 2024 was a particularly controversial one, because before that, most congregations thought they could just wait and see what the results of the next General Conference would be before deciding whether to leave, but with the push to 2024, they were then faced with the choice of leaving before seeing what the results would be, or sticking it out and hoping that in the worst case scenario, the expired disaffiliation section would be renewed and they would still be allowed to leave. Instead, that section was deleted.

Now, any church wanting to leave is, by the letter of the law, required to give up its property.

Wow!

 

[chevyontheriver]

Wow!

The bigger wow is that there was an exit plan allowed but now it’s unallowed. Those congregations that adopted a wait and see approach, ready to leave if things got worse now cannot leave. And things got worse. Best they can do now is rent a spot and go there and let the UMC have the empty building the congregation built in the first place.

I accept that the property of the Christian group as a whole, in this case the UMC, should remain with the group as a whole. But two things bother me here. First is that the UMC had an escape plan and then removed it without warning. Second is that the property of the group as a whole is supposed to be for the continued mission of the group as a whole. The UMC changed their mission to the point where many members could not recognize it any longer and could not continue in the new mission.

 

[riesie]

The bigger wow is that there was an exit plan allowed but now it’s unallowed. Those congregations that adopted a wait and see approach, ready to leave if things got worse now cannot leave. And things got worse. Best they can do now is rent a spot and go there and let the UMC have the empty building the congregation built in the first place.

I accept that the property of the Christian group as a whole, in this case the UMC, should remain with the group as a whole. But two things bother me here. First is that the UMC had an escape plan and then removed it without warning. Second is that the property of the group as a whole is supposed to be for the continued mission of the group as a whole. The UMC changed their mission to the point where many members could not recognize it any longer and could not continue in the new mission.

Thanks, yes I agree with you. It's actually stunning!