These are some highlights from UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries.
- On the Protocol and African UMs
- Recommended Reading: Filipino United Methodists Plan Episcopal Elections
- Staying Stuck in UMC Conflict
- Creating a Respectful and Fair Separation
- Bayanihan and Connectionalism
- Ubuntu and Sanctification
On the Protocol and African UMs
Zimbabwean Traditionalist UMC leader Rev. Forbes Matonga recently wrote a piece entitled "Waiting in Africa: The Impact of the Postponement of General Conference." That piece plus additional remarks made by Matonga and others on a recent episode of the WCA's podcast offer fruitful material for thinking about how various African United Methodists may approach the 2024 General Conference.
In the podcast, Matonga states what Bishop Quire of Liberia has previously stated and what Bishops Quire, Kasap, and Yohanna reiterated over the weekend at an Africa Initiative event: Africans allied with US Traditionalists intend to remain in the UMC until the 2024 General Conference. In the podcast, Congolese Traditionalist UMC leader Kimba Evariste expresses a personal desire to leave the denomination before then, which is notable, but the overall Africa Initiative strategy seems to be to stay in the denomination and to push for adoption of the Protocol, as Matonga indicates in his article.
In his article, Matonga expresses confidence that, backed by African support, the Protocol will pass. He correctly notes that if delegate numbers are recalculated between now and General Conference 2024, that recalculation will benefit African influence at the expense of American influence. Based on that math and an assumption that the same global coalition that has turned out for Traditionalist initiatives in the past will turn out for the Protocol in 2024, Matonga confidently asserts that the Protocol will pass.
But Matonga's second assumption bears questioning. As is made more fully clear in the podcast, Matonga is expecting all Africans, most to all Filipinos, all Eastern Europeans, and US Traditionalists to vote together for the Protocol. This is the coalition of votes that has preserved traditional stances on marriage in the UMC Book of Discipline in recent decades.
But Matonga misses the important point that the Protocol is a different issue that the denomination's official teaching on sexuality, and the same coalition will not necessarily support the Protocol just because they believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. ...
...with fewer US Traditionalists, without much support by Filipinos, with a few less votes from Eastern Europe, and with less solid support by Africans, the Protocol is unlikely to pass by the force of the same coalition that has prevailed at the previous several General Conferences.
The main takeaways here are two:
First, church observers need to start decoupling UMC leaders' views on sexuality and their views on the future of the UMC. Those are two very different questions that do not promote the same set of answers. Instead, one should think of the UMC as being dominated by a new set of denominational issues that creates a new set of denominational factions.
Second, without clear coalitions among these new denominational factions and with conflicting answers across different factions on different issues, there is a strong possibility that the 2024 General Conference will not accomplish anything major. As much as the denomination is beset by problems crying out for answers, divided factions along with entrenched conflict may mean that no major legislation comes out of General Conference 2024, further hollowing out the church. The whole article is here.
-------------------
Staying Stuck in UMC Conflict
Followers of the UMC had been waiting for months to find out whether General Conference would meet in 2022 as previously indicated, or whether there would be yet another delay. That period of waiting was marked with tension and increasing conflict. When the Commission on General Conference's decision was released, at least it was something, rather than continued uncertainty. People could now get on with making plans.
Traditionalists were deeply disappointed that they would not get a chance to pass the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation in 2022. Traditionalist leaders decided, though, that it was best to commence with formation of a new denomination now rather than engage in more waiting for 2024. And among some Traditionalists and some Centrists/Progressives, there was a sense that it was time to get the separation over so as to move on and be able to focus on each group's own ministry rather than continued conflict.
Conflict, however, can be be a hard habit to break. In the two and a half months since the news broke that General Conference was not meeting until 2024 but the Global Methodist Church was launching this year, the UMC has shown itself to be locked in conflict. ...
In short, the announcements of further General Conference delay and formation of the Global Methodist Church have done no more to resolve the conflict in The United Methodist Church than did the 2019 General Conference or the Commission on a Way Forward or any of the other many prior attempts to move past denominational conflict.
With harsh attitudes by all sides towards each other, good faith negotiation is difficult to find. ...
There will be especially big consequences if the next General Conference, when it finally does meet, is unable to pass any major legislation, which remains a real possibility. It will lead to the further hollowing out of the denomination and many churches that are part of it.
But conflict is a strong drug. It can be a very difficult addiction to kick. There are practices and strategies that leaders throughout the denomination could implement to move beyond conflict. But right now, it doesn't look likely that the UMC will be doing so anytime soon. Read the whole article here.
----------------
Creating a Respectful and Fair Separation
This post is a translation of Klaus Ulrich Ruof’s article “Trennung respektvoll und fair gestalten,” first published on the website of the Evangelisch-methodistische Kirke, the UMC in Germany. The translation is by UM & Global’s Dr. David W. Scott. Read the English translation of the article here.
----------------
Reflections on the Christmas Covenant principles of Ubuntu and Bayanihan
Bayanihan and Connectionalism
In the spirit of cross-cultural dialogue, I will treat the statement of these principles as an invitation to the whole church to engage in theological reflection on ubuntu and bayanihan and consider how these concepts can contain lessons for Methodist/Wesleyan theological thinking in other contexts as well. In this post, I will reflect on the connection between bayanihan and connectionalism. In a previous post, I reflected on the connection between ubuntu and sanctification. Read the whole article here.
----------------
Ubuntu and Sanctification
In the spirit of cross-cultural dialogue, I will treat the statement of these principles as an invitation to the whole church to engage in theological reflection on ubuntu and bayanihan and consider how these concepts can contain lessons for Methodist/Wesleyan theological thinking in other contexts as well. In this post, I will reflect on the connection between ubuntu and sanctification. Read the whole article here.