An Open Letter to United Methodists
Andy Langford — May 2012
I reflect on General Conference 2012 with deep and profound sadness. Many persons are now offering their own opinions about what happened in Tampa. At the adjournment of General Conference, Bishop Scott Jones said that he had witnessed “the death throes of a 1970s institution.” Bishop Rosemarie Wenner, the new President of the Council of Bishops, wrote, “Many people were not ready to do bold steps into a new model of structure and oversight and we fettered ourselves with a constitution that saves a dysfunctional system.”
Instead of replaying all the details about what happened, however, a more fundamental question is how does The United Methodist Church move forward? With the increasing decline of congregations in the United States and impending collapse of our general church structures on the near horizon, how does our denomination live into the future? Which new leaders will emerge? Is there hope?
Even as we soon celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, our church needs passionate laity and clergy at the local level to be advocates for fundamental change, in order that our denomination might fulfill the call from Jesus Christ to make disciples for the transformation of the world. No doubt, these advocates would include pastors from our leading congregations. In addition, members of the Council of Bishops, perhaps in conversation with the Connectional Table, are needed to join in the discussion and guide us toward clarity and wisdom. Currently, we are a denomination without a rudder; we need strong leadership to steer us towards a hopeful future.
I offer this document as one of many invitations from leaders throughout our beloved denomination to join in conversation with prayerful hope and expectation that God will give us the courage and insight we need for this time.
Fundamental Questions About Money
The conversation among church leaders must include serious reflection about our general church’s monies: how the monies are raised, how the income is spent, and who makes such decisions. Money is the fuel that powers our denomination.
Many United Methodists assume that the financial resources and governance we have had in the past will continue into the future. All the evidence indicates otherwise. Closing our eyes and hoping for the best is not a strategy forward. We should instead follow the money and see where our monies lead us.
A Brief History
Let me share some history that shapes my views. Going into General Conference, two mentors informed my perspective. John Wesley once wrote: “I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out.” I believe that The United Methodist Church in 2012 has become the stagnant Church of England, which Mr. Wesley sought to reform. As a denomination, too many United Methodists have come to love our established institution and have forgotten the spirit of personal and social holiness that gave us birth.
In 1968, Dr. Albert Outler, our most significant Wesleyan theologian in the 20th century, spoke against the general church organization we now have. Outler believed that the proposed and adopted organizational model would not be faithful to our Wesleyan tradition, would scatter power, and would cause us to lose focus on making disciples. Outler’s fears have proven correct.
Our crisis is most clear in the United States and Europe. We have less than 70,000 United Methodists in Europe. Since 1968, the United Methodist Church in the United States has been in decline. We have older members, fewer members, and less money for ministry and missions. Only 15% of our congregations in the United States are highly vital. In 2011, the United Methodist churches in the United States saw the largest ever decline in membership and worship attendance. Our General Council of Finance and Administration economists anticipate that The United Methodist Church will receive less money in the next four years for the general church than it received in the last four years.
Many United Methodist leaders have seen this crisis coming. Since the publication of Bishop Richard Wilke’s And Are We Yet Alive? twenty-five years ago, many leaders in our church have called for reform. Eighteen years ago, Will Willimon and I, seeking fundamental renewal, wrote A New Connection: Reforming The United Methodist Church. Many others have joined this chorus, including those authors in the new Abingdon Press series on the adaptive challenge facing our denomination.
Over the past three years, our Council of Bishops, the Connectional Table, leading pastors and laity, and many other people invested thousands of dollars, thousands of hours, and countless prayers preparing to lead our denomination forward. Many powerful options for reform were offered. Was 2012 to be the year to reclaim the Wesleyan movement for our denomination?
At the opening of General Conference, the report of The Call to Action described the United Methodist decline in the United States in graphic ways. For eleven days in Tampa, at a cost of over $8 million, many people tried for reform in structures, finances, and direction. The Interim Operations Team and the Connectional Table legislation sought not to save our United Methodist Church but to find new ways “to redirect the flow of attention, energy, and resources to an intense concentration on fostering and sustaining an increase in the number of vital congregations effective in making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” No one doubted the analysis of the problems as described by the Call to Action research.
At General Conference, we had significant leadership from many of our bishops. Laity and clergy, female and male, young and old, Central Conference and United States delegates joined in the conversations. Many, many people gave of their time, skills, and prayers.
After the Call to Action report at the opening of General Conference, however, United States congregational decline was never mentioned again in the plenary. The powers and principalities of institutional self-survival were too entrenched. Many of our caucuses, most of our general agencies, and particularly the Judicial Council of our United Methodist Church have proven unwilling and incapable of significant reform. Wesley’s fears of a dead sect were public for all to see.
General Conference reduced the size of the governing boards of the general agencies, including a significant reduction of the number of Central Conference members, yet preserved most the positions of the independent general agency executive staff. For example, only 14% of the members of the General Council on Finance and Administration are from Central Conferences; the General Commission on Archives and History has only one Central Conference out of eleven whereas 40% of the total membership of our denomination are from Central Conferences). Rearranging the deckchairs of a sinking ship, General Conference tossed the paying passengers overboard and saved the lives of the crew.
At the end of two weeks, not a single petition from the Local Church Legislative Committee had made it to the plenary floor. General Conference debated divestiture from Israel, homosexuality, rules and mandates, and other topics for hours. But annual conferences were again forbidden any flexibility for achieving mission. Strategies to strengthen local congregations were not discussed on the plenary floor. The goal to redirect resources to increase vital congregation was not added to our Discipline. For any movement of redirection to continue, the movement will have to be on a church by church, conference by conference level, not at the general church level. What a loss.
At the end of General Conference, an article in The United Methodist Reporter spoke of “a slow, agonizing, organizational death.” Maria Hall, an organizational guru, believes that “we must dare to tear down to our foundations if we ever hope to be any good to the world.” Further, “an 18th century structure cannot sustain a 21st century global organization.”
How does The United Methodist Church, then, move forward? Where should leaders start?
General Church Apportionments
As we look toward the future, major financial and governance issues lurk just below the surface. How are general church funds raised and spent, and who makes those decisions?
I increasingly question the financial support by thousands of local congregations in the United States of our dysfunctional denominational agencies. The emperor has no clothes. Is it time to stop contributing to the emperor’s clothing allowance?
Before General Conference, I spoke with a group of young clergy fearful about the future of our denomination in the United States. I reminded these passionate young women and men that change rarely comes from the top but from the bottom. The 2012 General Conference proved this point. Is it time for pastors and laity in local congregations who seek to save our movement to reassert their leadership and cease funding a system that has led to our denomination’s decline?
Many of our leaders and my friends will continue to be loyal to our system and will pay 100% of their apportionments as dictated by our Discipline. These leaders believe that the general agencies now understand the depth of the problems and will voluntarily change. I honor that perspective but believe it to be far too cautious and optimistic.
The looming spectre of the “death tsunami,” as described by Lovett Weems in Focus: The Real Challenges Facing The United Methodist Church, indicates that our denomination has only a few years to change before the current funding model of our church collapses. No one has disputed
Weems’ facts. Yet, the only institutional response from our denomination has been to encourage the aging and declining members in the United States to be more generous financially to the existing system.
Continuing to fund our existing system, however, only encourages the status quo and inhibits efforts for renewal. While Jesus Christ will never abandon the Church universal, I believe that ultimately much of our current United Methodist system must die before the Wesleyan movement can be resurrected. The easiest and fastest way to hasten this death of many parts of our general institution is by the withholding of monies.
The single greatest institutional problem that hinders effective congregations is our general church agencies. All of these agencies are filled with good people doing useful ministry. But, we have thirteen different agencies with thirteen different governing boards with thirteen different executives with thirteen different agendas. Most of the general agencies do most of their work only in the United States. No one is in charge; the ruling of the Judicial Council indicates that no one should be in charge. There is almost no focus on vital congregations and not enough attention paid to our global connection. Agencies have little accountability. We are like small kayaks paddling in different directions versus a crew of disciple rowers moving together toward a goal.
Why, therefore, are United Methodists in the United States continuing to support those disparate agencies? The only way that many of our institutional leaders may listen is to deprive them of money from local congregations through annual conferences.
By the adjournment of General Conference, our denomination chose to protect the status quo, the existing general agencies, mandates that focus beyond local congregations and annual conferences, and those persons and institutions supported financially by our current organization. The next four years will witness continuing decline among congregations in the United States and thus declining finances.
Why will we continue our support of the World Service Fund or General Administration Fund? These two funds primarily support the institutional status quo that resists focus on making faithful disciples and vital congregations. While monies are needed for vital missions nationally and globally, are the general agencies the most appropriate avenue of giving?
Concurrently, United Methodists should continue to support the missions of our districts and annual conferences. Districts and conferences are the primary building blocks of our connection. Yet, the relationship between monies to be apportioned and sent “without reduction” from the annual conference to the general church is often not understood. Annual conferences, by our Discipline, must send a large percentage of their receipts to the general church. This percentage of the monies apportioned from local congregations by annual conferences ranges from a low of 9% in the North Carolina Conference to over 60% in the Oregon-Idaho Conferences. The average is 22% of all apportionments from an annual conference to local congregations goes to the general church. Who loses in this model?
The annual conferences are stuck between a rock of general church apportionments and the hard place of declining congregational monies. In the last 20 years, annual conferences in the United States have lost almost one-third of all District Superintendents and even a higher level of annual conference staff due to budget cuts. The trend indicates that in the near future the annual conferences will exist only to transfer money from local congregations to the general church.
Finally, the Ministerial Education Fund, the Black College Fund, Africa University Fund, the Episcopal Fund, and the Interdenominational Fund all serve vital functions. They still deserve financial support. All of us still want to be part of a connectional system.
Our finance leaders already anticipate that at best 85% of our general apportionments will be paid in the new quadrennium; and the total amount of money going to the general church will decline by over 6%. This decline reflects the declining number of vital congregations in the United States. What would happen if only 50% or less of apportionments were paid? What if World Service and General Administration collapsed? Would anyone in local churches or annual conferences notice any difference? Would anyone in the world notice?
For such a financial realignment to work, this reformation would require a significant number of congregations and conferences to participate. Unfortunately, many clergy live under fear of clergy misconduct charges for non-payment of apportionments (has this ever happened?). Especially with the loss of clergy guaranteed appointments, does non-payment of apportionments give additional power to the leaders supporting the status quo? Are there enough pastors and congregations willing to speak up and act? Can the pastors of our leading congregations lead? Are some bishops willing to support this shift?
Every pastor, every lay person, every congregation, every annual conference, every bishop must ask such questions about general church apportionments. Do our financial investments in the general church encourage or inhibit the fundamental change that our denomination needs?
Global Realignment: Money and Governance
An even larger crisis will face our denomination possibly in four years and certainly no later than eight years: the financial and governance relationship between The United Methodist Church in the United States and our Central Conferences in Asia, the Philippines, Europe, and Africa.
Today, about 99% of all general church apportionments come from the United States. Central Conferences contribute to local funding, local missions, and a little to the Episcopal Fund. This giving simply reflects that while United Methodists in America and Europe have monies to give, United Methodists in Asia, the Philippines, and Africa have very little financial resources. Almost all of the general church money comes from the declining congregations in the United States.
Yet, at the 2012 General Conference, almost 40% of all delegates came from Central Conferences. All of these delegates together shaped the general church budget and other financial matters. For example, all delegates, both inside and outside the United States, voted on the revisions to the pension plan for clergy and church professionals in the United States.
Possibly by 2016 and certainly by 2020, based on current demographics, Central Conference delegates will have over 50% of the vote at General Conference. Central Conference delegates will have the majority vote on how the general church budget will be set, how it will be apportioned, and how it will be spent. Will Central Conference delegates vote to lower a budget to which they do not contribute? Will Central Conferences be apportioned funds? Please note, the Judicial Council at General Conference also forbade the General Council on Finance and Administration from even discussing apportionment allocations with Central Conferences. Will more of the budget be spent outside the United States?
In the corners and hallways of the 2012 General Conference, many delegates inside and outside the United States wondered about the implications of such a global shift of power. Everyone celebrates the growth of United Methodist membership, especially in Africa. But will United Methodists in the United States still fund a system in which they have a minority vote? Will persons in the United States conclude that they are being apportioned without adequate representation? The most probing questions deal with what will happen to pensions within the United States and the expenditures of the Ministerial Education Fund. I sense real fear from many in the United States.
Is the fear warranted? What is the Christian obligation of the wealthy for those without major resources? Should we have regional budgets and regional governance? Are certain financial issues distinct to certain regions and to be determined there? Everyone knows a fundamental change in global financial governance is coming. How will the change be handled? Who is leading this conversation? Will this shift finally end or strengthen our global connection?
On another side note, General Conference voted down legislation, which would have allowed the Council of Bishops to select a non-residential bishop to guide their leadership on this issue and others. While the church cries out for leaders, we also restrict the ability of our temporal and spiritual leaders to lead. Unfortunately, neither the Council of Bishops nor any other body has the ability, nor authority according to the Judicial Council, to lead on such significant issues.
To the best of my knowledge, no group within our denomination has even begun to have conversations about what happens
next regarding the general church budget and financial governance. This lack of attention reaffirms the lack of leadership from the general church. We have only a few years to make important decisions. Who will lead the dialogue within our Wesleyan connection?
Conclusion
I write out of deep anguish, but I am not without hope. I love The United Methodist Church, but am mourning what we have allowed ourselves to become. Our historic commitment to payment of apportionments has fostered and entitled a dysfunctional system. The possibility of global church division and conflict is real. More than ever before, we need leaders who will lead. I hope that such leaders will emerge.
I am certain, however, that ultimately we are not accountable to a system that seeks 100% payment of financial apportionments for a dying system. We need a system that raises monies appropriately from every part of the church to be spent by one other with true collegiality.
Most importantly, we should listen to our living God. During worship at General Conference, we heard Jesus Christ calling us through Scripture to leave our boats, to stop fishing in old ways, and to follow him to a new mission field. Unfortunately, General Conference 2012 chose not to do so.
Our Savior Jesus Christ continues to call us. Will we listen? Will we follow?
Andy Langford
Pastor, Central United Methodist Church: Concord, North Carolina
Western North Carolina Annual Conference
Member of the United Methodist Church Connectional Table
Five-time delegate to General Conference
Pastor Andy Langford's Blog 
Please, Just keep writing books!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you……………………………….
Hi Andy, thank you for your heartfelt, heart-rendering words. May I add one more word to the conversation? That word is “Repent.” Not in the revivalistic sense, but in the sense of each person, starting with myself, being willing to ask of myself, “What am I doing to hold back the movement of God’s Spirit?” and “What change do I need to allow God to make in me to move with God’s Spirit?” I personally don’t think there will be any real and lasting change and reform until we join together in personal and communal repentance.
Thanks,
Kirk Tutterow
Thank you for writing. Few of us have access to the data, much less an interpretive framework to make sense of the data. Thank you for being a conduit for the information, and for the courage to put it out there; vulnerable to emotional reaction and misinterpretation. When you find out where the conversation might take place, let us know. I think you’ll find some takers.
The old commercial comes to mind where children are interviewed on a playground about their dreams and one says, “I want to languish in middle management.” Thanks for helping this preacher not do that.
Hello Andy, good to see you adding your voice to this conversation over the internets.
The tactic of withholding apportionments is one that has been used before, mostly when local churches were mad about social issues (homosexuality, abortion, etc). Most of the individual cases were resolved when the offending General Agency program was ended (such as the 1970s Sexuality Forums by the GBOD), the local church pastor was re-appointed, or the church changed their minds.
My question: Once we start withholding apportionments, what would cause us to start paying them again? Would it be with reorganization–what if not everyone agreed with the specifics? Would it be with expressed realignment to the local church–what if churches didn’t pay again until they saw the effects directly? I can imagine 30 different reasons why a local congregation that heeds your call outlined here, one that becomes accustomed to 3 years of not paying apportionments, would not want to restart them again, even with pressure from the Episcopacy.
My fear is that withholding apportionments is a slippery slope that not only blunts the witness and advocacy of UMCOR and missions agencies, but also would not be returned even if we came up with a shining example of the UMC general church structure that everyone was happy with, even sarcastic twitterers.
In short, would this strike at the purse-strings accidentally hit at the very connectional nature of the Church…in irrevocable ways?
Thanks for considering the question. Blessings on your ministry and your family.
~Jeremy Smith
I am the daughter of two UMC pastors who served as missionaries to Japan for ten years. My father (then in his 70’s) relinquished his credentials in disgust over the defrocking of a UMC pastor in Pennsylvania after she told her congregation that her roommate was actually her life partner. As the father of a gay man (my brother) and the grandfather of a lesbian woman (my niece), he could not stomach the closed doors any longer. My mother chose to keep her credentials and was the pastor of a reconciling congregation in Atlanta prior to her retirement. And I? I choose to attend a ONA United Church of Christ, where all are truly welcomed into the House of God. I appreciate that you and others are staying to try to help the UMC grow into what God would want it to be. I simply no longer have the stomach for it.
Thank you for posting this. It is time for truth to be spoken across the board. Between tweets, blogs and streaming, the utter dysfunction of the GC has now been very fully exposed. This is not a bad thing–it is a place to start with real renewal that we may again be the church born on the Day of Pentecost and later envisioned by John Wesley. Let us all find the courage to be faithful and speak our truth with redemptive love.
Andy, Many of the points that you make are good. I believe that you are too hard on the Judicial Council though. Past decisions in other areas have convinced me that the Judicial Council members better than most of the Boards and Agencies put aside personal views and base their decisions on the Discipline / Constitution, letting the chips fall where they may. From their decision, it is apparent that all of the restructuring proposals had serious and, apparently obvious, constitutional defects. What does it say about the Connectional Table and Interim Operations Team that they can spend months developing a reorganization plan without, apparently, having someone knowledgeable of United Methodist Church law even look at it? People knew that the changes associated with the bishops roles required constitutional amendments. Why were they not aware of the need for constitutional amendment for the reorganization. The issue does not appear to be the Judicial Council; but rather the competence of the Connectional Table and Interim Operations Team.
The following is an exceptional analysis of the work of the Judicial Council. Unfortunately, it has become a cover for the status quo. In private conversations, I am convinced that the Council would have found any restructuring unconstitutional. By their practice, they never offer opinions on impending legislation until it is passed by plenary. They would not have responded to a request by the CT or IOT. Read Brooks’ analysis:
POLITY PERSPECTIVE ON JUDICIAL COUNCIL DECISION 1210
By Lonnie D. Brooks
I don’t need to recount for you in detail the torturous process by which at General Conference 2012 we
arrived at its closing hours struggling to understand the impact of Judicial Council Decision 1210 which
struck down the plan for the restructuring of the general agencies of The United Methodist Church. By
now that has resounded throughout the Church, at least among those who care about the Church as it
exists connectionally.
But briefly to summarize, after the General Administration Legislative Committee had failed to decide on
any plan for restructure, advocates of two competing plans—the plan proposed by the Connectional Table
upon the recommendation of the Interim Operations Team and the alternative plan called Plan B—worked
together for two days to craft a compromise plan using elements from each of the plans, also including
elements from the plan put forward by the Methodist Federation for Social Action. Two important
elements of the MFSA plan that were included based upon conversations earlier conducted between
representatives of MFSA and Plan B were inclusion of representatives of the five recognized racial and
ethnic caucuses in membership on the Council for Strategy and Oversight and independent reporting to
General Conference for the monitoring function of the Committee on Inclusiveness.
That compromise plan became known as Plan UMC, it was presented to General Conference, and, with
one amendment increasing significantly Central Conference representation on the remaining general
agencies, on Wednesday morning, 02May12, it was adopted by General Conference by an overwhelming
vote of 567 to 384, a 60% majority, which in the United States Senate would be strong enough support to
break a filibuster. (Daily Christian Advocate, page 2639, last line on page.)
On Friday, 04May12, the Judicial Council announced its decision that “Plan UMC is unconstitutional,”
further saying that it is “constitutionally unsalvageable.” (JCD 1210) By that latter finding, the Judicial
Council meant that it could not declare parts of the legislation unconstitutional and other parts in
compliance with the Constitution, but simply was striking down the entire package.
That was an astounding act of the Judicial Council, without precedent for so wide ranging a piece of
legislation. One must go all the way back to October, 1972, to find anything similar when in JCD 364 the
Judicial Council struck down a portion of the legislation creating the General Council on Ministries. An
important difference between the two cases is that in 1972, the act creating the GCOM was left to stand,
and only the portion of its powers decided by the Judicial Council to be legislative in nature was struck
down. And in that case, there was a strong dissenting opinion by two of the members who claimed the
delegated powers were not legislative since all actions of the GCOM had to be consistent with decisions
and decrees of the General Conference. Moreover, the Judicial Council had refused to decide the case in
the heat of the action of General Conference, but postponed its decision until the fall session so it could
study the issues involved, listening to the arguments on all sides of the matter.
There were two constitutional principles that the Judicial Council says were violated by Plan UMC, and
they each deserve scrutiny. First, JCD 1210 says that General Conference “legislative functions may not
be delegated” The functions at issue are, “the creation and establishment of general Church boards and
agencies, the fixing of their structure, the determination of their functions, duties and responsibilities, and
the establishing of Church priorities” which “are legislative functions reserved to the General Conference
alone.”
The second constitutional principle that the Judicial Council says was violated by Plan UMC was that
“the Constitution authorizes the Council of Bishops to bear the responsibility for general oversight.” It
went further to say the following:
The constitutional authority of the Council of Bishops cannot be compromised or
modified by legislative enactments. As ¶ 47 (Article III) of the Constitution provides:
The council shall meet at least once a year and plan for the general
oversight and promotion of the temporal and spiritual interests of the
entire Church and for carrying into effect the rules, regulations, and
responsibilities prescribed and enjoined by the General Conference…
By far, the more important principle, in my judgment, is the latter one concerning the oversight authority
of the bishops, as seen against the back drop of Methodist history and our own Constitution and current
polity. So, I’ll save my analysis of that until later in this essay.
Delegation of Legislative Authority
That is not to say that the first principle of the delegation of legislative authority is unimportant. It is
simply that the Judicial Council has misunderstood in total what Plan UMC does and does not do. I find
it hard to believe, in fact, that the Council was even reading its own writing, because Plan UMC did not
give to the General Council for Strategy and Oversight (GCSO) any of the authority that the Council says
was in violation of the Constitution.
Look at the first example from the legislation that the Council has cited:
The General Council for Strategy and Oversight oversight responsibility shall include the
authority for consolidation of administrative services to the extent practicable for all
general church activities into the appropriate agency on a fee for service basis as it affects
agencies receiving general church funds. (Amendment of ¶ 901.4, DCA p. 2552)
That provision is on Lines 446 to 449 of the DCA citation. This calls for the consolidation of
administrative services, not of program responsibilities. And in the digest of the decision, the Council has
acknowledged that General Conference does have authority to delegate its administrative power, where it
says:
The Constitution limits the General Conference in the authority it may delegate to the
boards and agencies it creates. This authority is limited to the work of promotion and
administration.
The second instance the Council cites to support its claim that General Conference has attempted to
delegate its legislative authority is equally mysterious, and its conclusion simply does not follow from the
citation. Here is what the Council said:
…the General Council on Strategy and Oversight:
… may direct the General Council on Finance and Administration to withhold funding
for any programs and activities until the GCSO determines that the responsible general
agency has achieved, or identified means satisfactorily to achieve, the established
outcomes. [This is a quotation from Lines 507 to 510 of Plan UMC as it was printed in
the DCA of Tuesday, May 1, 2012.]
This provision unconstitutionally delegates the authority of the General Conference for
“distributing funds necessary to carry on the work of the Church” to the General Council
on Strategy and Oversight, contrary to ¶ 16.9.
First and foremost, there is no delegation of authority to the GCSO to distribute or redistribute funds
budgeted by General Conference. There is a delegation of authority to withhold funds until a recalcitrant
agency has complied with requirements established by General Conference and policies set by the
agency’s own board of directors in compliance with the mandates established for it by General
Conference. Moreover, this is simply a restatement of authority already in place with the General Council
on Finance and Administration. In multiple places in the Book of Discipline GCFA is already provided
with authority to withhold funds when an agency does not comply with policy: ¶¶806.12.c)(2), 807.13.b),
811.1, 811.2 are four examples where this authority has already been delegated by General Conference.
Authority to withhold funds is not authority to redirect funds. Withheld funds will revert to the general
fund if the agency never comes into compliance, and such funds would be available for budgeting by a
future General Conference, but not by the GCSO or by GCFA.
And finally, on the topic of delegation of legislative authority, the Council said that General Conference
may not delegate its authority over boards and agencies for, “the fixing of their structure, the
determination of their functions, duties and responsibilities, and the establishing of Church priorities.”
Yet the Council has not provided one single example of where such a delegation has occurred. The very
good reason for that is that there is none. No such authority was provided in Plan UMC to the GCSO.
All the mandates for all the surviving agencies in Plan UMC are left in place in the Book of Discipline.
All the priorities are established by General Conference, and each agency’s board of directors works
within those priorities to direct the work of each agency.
Oversight Responsibility of the Council of Bishops
The far more important principle that the Judicial Council says is violated by Plan UMC is the principle
of oversight. The Council said, “In ¶ 47, the Constitution authorizes the Council of Bishops to bear the
responsibility for general oversight.” It quoted from ¶47, which says, “The council shall meet at least
once a year and plan for the general oversight and promotion of the temporal and spiritual interests of the
entire Church and for carrying into effect the rules, regulations, and responsibilities prescribed and
enjoined by the General Conference…”
That does not address the question of whether or not authority for “general oversight,” which is given to
the Council of Bishops, excludes the possibility that General Conference may give authority to another
body of the Church for specific instances of oversight over particular ministries. It certainly does not
preclude the possibility that oversight in particular instances is a shared responsibility. Nor does it
preclude the agency boards from administrative oversight of the mandates of General Conference
assigned to each agency.
It is extremely important to take note of the fact that the authority for oversight that is given to the
Council of Bishops is not unmodified, which means it is not unlimited. The authority is for general
oversight. This is parallel to the power given to the federal government in the United States Constitution
to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” Authority to provide for
the general welfare of the United States has never been interpreted to mean that state and local
governments are prohibited from establishing structures intended to deliver services for the welfare of
their people. Thus the State of Alaska has its Department of Environmental Conservation, its Department
of Natural Resources, its Department of Health and Social Services, and so on through a whole gamut of
departments, each intended to provide for specific instances of the welfare of the people of Alaska, none
of which powers encroach on the authority of the Congress of the United States to provide for the general
welfare.
There is such overlap explicitly within the United Methodist Constitution itself. ¶47, already cited, says,
“The council shall meet at least once a year and plan for the general oversight and promotion of the
temporal and spiritual interests of the entire Church…” where I have added emphasis to the word
“promotion.” Please also look at ¶16.8, which gives authority to General Conference to establish boards
and agencies: “To initiate and to direct all connectional enterprises of the Church and to provide boards
for their promotion and administration.” The same word, “promotion,” is used in that provision for the
power of the agencies as was provided to the bishops. The promotion of the interests of the Church is
now, and always has been, a shared responsibility that is not exclusive to the Council of Bishops.
In fact, the connectional structure of the Church is replete with examples of where General Conference
has done precisely that and established structures for sharing that responsibility. The General Board of
Church and Society has been empowered with overseeing the work of other agencies in pursuing their
legislative agenda. ¶1004 says, “The Board shall facilitate and coordinate the legislative advocacy
activities in the United States Congress of other general agencies of The United Methodist Church that
receive General Church funds.” Please note that the phrase “facilitate and coordinate” is synonymous
with “oversight” in this instance. In defining the work of the General Board of Discipleship ¶1109.1 says
the following:
¶ 1109. Christian Education—1. The board shall have general oversight of the
educational interests of the Church as directed by the General Conference. The board
shall be responsible for the development of a clear statement of the biblical and
theological foundations of Christian education, consistent with the doctrines of The
United Methodist Church and the mission of the board. The board shall devote itself to
strengthening and extending the teaching ministry of the Church through research; testing
new approaches, methods, and resources; evaluation; and consultation. [Emphasis
Added]
In ¶1204, the Division on Ministries with Young People has authority “to determine and interpret
program directions that support its mandate.”
In ¶1303.3 the General Board of Global Ministries is given the following authority:
The board shall facilitate and coordinate the program relationships of other program
agencies of The United Methodist Church with churches and agencies in nations other
than the United States.
In ¶1405.10 the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry is given the following authority:
To recruit, endorse, and provide general oversight of United Methodist ordained
ministers, including persons who speak languages in addition to English, who desire to
serve as chaplains in specialized institutional ministry settings in both private and
governmental sectors. [Emphasis Added]
This list is not exhaustive, but representative of the shared nature of oversight authority in our Church. It
was not intended that the general oversight authority provided in the Constitution to the bishops be
considered to be exclusive of any oversight responsibility that might be assigned by General Conference
to other bodies of the Church for particular ministries or the administration of General Conference.
Thank you for this helpful analysis. What troubles me the most is that the Judicial Council, by practice, does not look at these things until passed by the plenary. What a colossal waste of time for everyone there! They are effectively holding the entire GC hostage by such a practice. $9,000,000 spent on GC, the church desperately needing a workable restructure model and the Judicial Council can’t change its practice for this? Is that a disciplinary rule? What were they thinking? Frankly, they should be ashamed of themselves–not necessary for their ruling, although your logic makes sense, but for holding the entire GC hostage to their practice of not looking these things over beforehand. Unbelievable.
Andy:
A more radical proposal is that we ASK FOR THE voluntary resignations of all the offending, feather-bedded, grandfathered agencies you have named. Let them dismantle their own silos.
Andy,
Two questions for you. Well, more like two collections of questions.
1) Who determines what is wasteful? I think if we were to poll Methodists around the country, we’d get very different views on which Boards and Agencies were unnecessary. Whose definition should we then follow? But also, don’t we see waste at all levels of the church? In the congregation I serve, for example, we print a number of unused bulletins every week. How should our waste be compared to that of Boards and Agencies? What about the “waste” of three other Methodist congregations within 5 miles of mine? Do those buildings and appointments eat up more resources than our Boards? Which should be focused on first?
2) Does local church knowledge really determine the usefulness of a Board or Agency? I confess that I don’t know much about COSROW (Committee on the Status and Role of Women) and I doubt very much that many members in my church are even aware it exists. But does that really mean COSROW does not do good work for the sake of the church?
The definition of useful is defined by the adaptive challenge: “to strengthen vital congregations.” This was the emphasis of the Call to Action and all the legislation not adopted by the 2012 General Conference. For example, if after 40 years of existence, if you do not know “much about COSROW” or any other agency, how useful has it been to win disciples of Jesus Christ in local congregations? If not, let it go.
Hi Andy: Several folks emailed me your blog today. I think you’ve probably done a more systematic explanation of the macro-problems on our horizon than anybody else I have read. Thank you.
I know this is extremely simplistic, but sometimes simple works. Since the complications of our apportionments is approaching our US tax code in understanding it (subtract this is that, write this off, vagaries of membership rolls, etc), here’s an alternative. Each church or charge, including church plants which are currently exempt from apportionments, pays 10% of its total revenues each year as part of their connectional giving. No more hiding funds behind capital gains campaigns or funneling them into foundations for the rich churches. No more letting the poverty striken churches get a free ride. The practice of giving is an overall command. Leave off the membership decimal completely.
Think about it: we could probably eliminate at least one administrative position in every conference office who just has to deal with all this each year. Membership reports are moving to the “dashboard system” anyway, so stop the redundancy with all those overlapping reports. Of that 10%, 5% stays in the conference, 5% goes to the general church budgets (I suspect I’m stretching here, but again, simple sometimes works). Every church or charge must have an outside audit each year–maybe we could use all those extra personnel hours to do the audits.
What do you think?
I think it’s a great idea. This was in the mix at General Conference. It would make the survival of General Boards dependent on the actual well being of local congregations!
Unfortunately, I think human nature is reactive rather than proactive. Our institutions, however bloated, remain until they become unacceptable to those who pay for them in money and blood.
I’ve often thought that too much of our church budget goes to a top heavy institution instead of building our local church membership. Membership languishes while apportionments increase. How does that make sense? I’m always bemused by our DS’s compliments at charge conference each year when we agree to meet our apportionment. There is always a feeling that if we don’t, there are consequences in the type of pastor who might be sent to lead us.
It would be nice if leadership in changing the larger institution would come at the conference level becuase if it doesn’t, then individual congregations will react in ways they think appropriate – consequenses be damned. And that, I think, would lead to an even less vital Methodist Church than we have now.
Andy –
You make an extremely strong statement when you say “The single greatest institutional problem that hinders effective congregations is our general church agencies.” Could you blog at some point about how you see the General agencies as hindering our congregations, what you envision the agencies could/should be doing, and could you comment on why you focus on *general* agencies rather than the agencies and resources (or lack thereof) which exist at the Annual Conference level?
I ask this with a particular perspective of being a young person who would not be involved in the United Methodist Church today had I not attended a Student Forum in 2003, been given scholarships to attend seminary in 2005-2008 and participated in seminar/education programs by both the General Board of Church and Society and the Women’s Division (then, a part of GBGM). So I see our agencies as doing very powerful work on shrinking budgets and the disconnects happening sometimes at the level of understaffed Annual-Conference resourcing agencies/staff/committees or at the local church level with members who don’t show up for programs about the work being done at General church levels, or when our leadership don’t even offer those resources and information to our local churches.
Thank you for your thoughtful work on all this!
The seminary scholarship is part of MEF, which I support. Would you care to share how much the general agencies paid for you to participate in the student forum and the seminars and how they made your local congregation more vital? The vision of the Call to Action and Connectional Table, in light of declines in the US, is to focus on strengthening vital congregations. What I believe is that many of the agencies focus attention on important but secondary themes, but not the most pressing issue of the loss of congregational strength. How many new members joined your congregation, or engaged in Bible study, or went on a mission trip, or attend your congregation as a result of the forum or seminars?
Andy, a few responses,
First, I’m going to answer your questions, but would also like to hear your responses to mine: how are the agencies a hindrance?
Second, as a lay person I was not eligible for MEF funds. Yes, the seminary is supported in part by MEF, but it was actually non-MEF other scholarships (administered by GBHEM) which made it possible for me to attend seminary.
Third, does my participation in the church count for so little that the investment of the agencies in MY spiritual life count for nothing? or am I only valuable to the church when I am bringing in more members and increasing the budget in my local congregation.
Forth and finally: did you see the Flashmob at General conference? Or hear from any of the young adult delegates? Perhaps you know Joey Lopez or Rachel Birkhahn-Rommelfanger. Perhaps you met any of the thirty young adult volunteers – 2/3 of whom had not been involved in a local church before they began participating in Reconciling work – who were present with MOSAIC? Can I draw a direct line from Student Forum to these 20 new young adults leaders who are active in local churches, campus ministries and five of who are in seminary? perhaps, but that line goes through me (as the RMN staff person who works with MOSAIC my greatest joy is encouraging the ministry of these young adults)
TO BE CLEAR, I am not attempting to blow my own horn, but to simply answer your question – how many people are actively in mission, bible study and disciples of Jesus Christ because of the agency work. And I would name these and other young people whom I have mentored and with whom I have worked as indirect (and direct as some have attended forum or served as YA missionaries) recipients of the *ministry* of our general agencies.
And why do I lay this credit at the feet of the agencies? Because honestly, I have been active in local churches my entire life, but at the times in my life (I’ve moved a number of times) when my local congregation did not provide me with the study, mission and community opportunities to support my spiritual life and ministry, there were agency opportunities for me to be involved in the connection. That involvement kept me in the church and working to make disciples when my local community could not.
I hope this is helpful for you to understand why I am asking for clear reasons and explanations about how the agencies are any thing other than a powerful asset to our General Church.
Thank you!
Audrey k
It’s clear from the storm of comments (here and elsewhere) that Andy has set something loose, but it’s also clear that any predication of reformation based on the overthrow of historic policies is doomed to defeat, unless we assume the Africans will have no voice in the future. That’s an unthinkable premise.
Read again the GCFA report. We have under 40,000 congregations in the US contributing to a $600,000,000 general church budget over 4 years. That works out to about $5,000 per congregation per year. Smaller churches pay less. Larger congregations pay more.
Being a dork for numbers, I looked it up:
According to the GCFA’s 2012 pre-conference briefing packet, the entire quadrennium’s World Service Fund will be approximately 600 Million dollars. Half of that total (~300M) will be designated to program agencies and the other half includes the Episcopal Service Fund, MEF, and others.
If we presume a per-member cost for the programmatic 300M, I figure $35 per-member quadrennially, or approximately $8.75 per-member annually. (GCFA reports 2012 membership in the US at 7.95M)
If we do an average per church cost, that is $7,500 per church quadrennially, or approximately $1,875 per-church annually.
The GCFA brochure is online: http://www.gcfa.org/sites/default/files/Pre-GC%20briefing%20information%20to%20attendees%20-%20FINAL%202-15-12.pdf
Oh, I just noticed: on page 3, the booklet states “The share of local church spending for general funds apportionments has decreased from 2.68% in 1996 to just over 2% in 2009”
So, I’m thinking why don’t we just go out and win people for Christ. In the end, the result is still navel gazing when we are talking about our current church membership. I understand the need for restructuring, but think we just need to go find ways to talk to people about Jesus. There’s a novel (notice: not navel) concept.
The whole purpose in the Call to Action and Plan UMC restructing focused precisely there. The restructuring was to increase the number of vital congregations making new disciples for Jesus Christ.
Where is your concern for the lethal effect that our General Conference had on our witness for inclusiveness? Money, or the lack of it, isn’t what is killing the church. Counterproductive tructure may handicap us severely, but old mother church has endured generations of disfunctional structure. Failure to be faithful witnesses to the gospel of love and justice just may accomplish the task of shoving the UMC into historical irrelevance. I’m a member of a reconciling Sunday school class – the only United Methodist Reconciling Community in South Carolina, and the fastest-growing group in our congregation. A nearby Lutheran church was rescued from death when it became a reconciling community. Edgehill United Methodist in Nashville and others are pulsing with mission and vitality. We won’t rise from our deathbed by becoming Southern Baptist Light, or by starving the mission and social outreach of the church, but rather by being true witnesses to God’s love and acceptance of all for whom Jesus lived, taught, died, and was resurrected.
I am concerned about inclusiveness. The minor realignments at General Conference for general agency governing boards reduced the number of youth, young adults, and central conference persons serving on these boards, along with everyone else.
I began writing a comment response to this, but found that I could not express what I wished within the confines of what is reasonable for a comment. So here is a link to my blog post in response. I hope that you take a few minutes to read and consider it. I post it not reactively, but in wishing to continue the dialogue, and would love to continue conversation if you choose.
http://revolumcionaria.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/open-letter-to-pastor-andy-langford-from-a-young-united-methodist-leader/
I, too, am disappointed that GC 2012 did not produce real change. But I don’t understand your proposal for a band of groups withholding apportionments to general agencies to force a breakdown. How is this any different in spirit than a band of local churches choosing to withhold certain apportionments because they don’t like a decision the Annual Conference has made? Or a band of church members withholding their tithes to force change?
It is similar, but focused. I do indicate that whatever monies are withheld should be spent on vital missions beyond the local church. In fact, there is nothing in the Discipline to prevent such an action by a local congregation. The annual conference must apportion “without reduction,” local congregations “receive the apportionment” but do not vote on it. Their use of dollars is their response.
Don you do give us something to think about. I do wonder why moving into a business model of operation back in the late 60s and 70s (20th Century) from a biblical model has been helpful at all. Since its beginning, this bureaucracy has done what they do…balloon into a huge non-accountable organization. Such an organization sucks resources away from the local church and has becomes a means whereby these agencies spend these resources on issues that clearly violate our Church’s practical theological stance: This stance formerly predicated on Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience.
BTW: When the Church operated under an 18th century organization.. well… it grew like wild fire. When we changed to our present day structure, rather than growing in a fruitful way, it seems we are becoming ashes.
I will happily support 2% of my giving going to the boards and agencies that do so much and- so often- take up the slack when individual congregations and annual conferences fail to support the young, the female, and the minority.
The vast majority of a local church’s offering stays in the congregation or goes to the annual conference. You said perfectly that, “our church needs passionate laity and clergy at the local level to be advocates for fundamental change.” I believe that change should begin on the local level, with congregations and annual conferences leaving the 2% alone and using the money they have to attain what you say the general boards have already achieved: being full of “good people doing useful ministry.”
I’ll restate Audrey’s question because I find your assertion about the relationship between congregations to be particularly audacious. How exactly do you see that “the single greatest institutional problem that hinders effective congregations is our general church agencies?” Is it a monetary hindrance? Is that extra 2% (less if you cut out those funds that you do like) or $5000 on average what is keeping congregations from being effective? Is it the distraction of irrelevant work? I understand the argument that the agencies are utterly uncoordinated and am sympathetic even as I think it is a little overstated. I don’t understand how agencies full of “good people doing useful ministry” could be so detrimental to congregations. Your argument to withhold (as I understand it) rests on your assertion that the agencies hinder the local churches institutionally. I don’t understand how you justify that claim.
Again, I assume you have read the APEX study related to the Call to Action report, which comes to the same conclusion as I. The issue for me is that for 40 years we have had 13 (now 14) agencies with different officers with different boards with different agendas leading us in different directions, the majority of which are not related to local congregations. It is as if a congregation, or district, or annual conference had multiple leaders/officers/agendas with no one to arbitrate (other than an every four-year meeting of 1,000 people). What have they achieved in 40 years? Not one year of growth in the US on any topic but requiring more money. The issue is not money but focus and alignment. We need all the agencies on task to achieve vital congregations. Money is the way to catch their attention.
I’m a lay person. Interesting that you chose to focus on money and that so many have responded in sympathy.
Sorry, but it does not wash well. Too much emphasis on dollars and not enough on faith.
I’m an old soldier. In my 17 years now as a civilian, I have never witnessed any UMC pastor as dedicated and determined as the soldiers with whom I served in peace, war, and worse than war.
Example, if the leftists pastors really cared about the GLBT community, they would leave the UMC and go serve that community. But…the UMC is still too safe, too many perqs, too much security to leave. Not a very high level of commitment. Not much courage. They stay, get paid, criticize, whine, and subvert.
Here in NC, both our bishops petitioned against the Marriage Amendment, but hid behind the figleaf of legal argument. They also failed to inform their conferences of their action. Not much courage there.
It is clear to me and many other UMC people that much of the clergy fully intends to ignore the Bible, ignore our basic principles including The Discipline, and let our morals slide with the popular culture.
Read the Bible, pray, pull up the big girl and big boy pants and lead!
I find it curious that you exempt from scrutiny the Ministerial Education Fund, the Black College Fund, Africa University Fund, the Episcopal Fund, and the Interdenominational Fund. In my experience as a pastor these agencies do no more to influence congregational vitality than the other general agencies you wish to starve.
It is easy to blame the other general agencies for our decline, but they are not prohibiting bishops from organizing their conferences to foster congregational vitality, or keeping bishops from holding pastors accountable for effectiveness. I see no one holding the seminaries accountable for not training transformational leaders for the local church.
The mission of the UMC is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, as per the Book of Discipline.
In the BOD, it continues by saying that the best place for this to happen is within the local church.
So why not listen to those people who have stated the ideas, missions, and works that they are focused on locally, and stop the “horn tooting” with all the “money money money” speeches?
If the local churches cannot do the mission within their communities, regions, etc, there will not be any reason to discuss money at any level – local, all the way up to general. =(
I do not think the UMC is as hopeless as stated, (if I did then I would turn in my credentials. Perhaps naively, I still believe nothing is impossible with God).
Perhaps that too is part or the majority of the problem with both the General Conference and the local church, we are reaping what we know we can control
and accomplish when God has been left out. I agree unmet monies for budgets
and apportionment’s are the mainstay of most churches and conferences. However, the foundation that is crumbling is the lack of transformational Spirit
filled clergy and laity that are hell bent on being satisfied with playing church
and being a social club than they are in being and bringing about the Kingdom
of God. We as United Methodist can not ever bring people into the church until
we ourselves (as individuals and as a church ) become so radically different than the world, that they have to see and experience it for themselves. Until then,the church is just another meeting, something to do, rather than something to be and become.
I’m afraid the problem is with your premise: “Money is the fuel that powers our denomination.” Ironically, that expressed view is supported by your dependence on sponsorship of your blog by a Las Vegas casino, whose ad appears at the conclusion of your posting.
If our denomination is powered by money, rather than the Holy Spirit, then it should fail. I’m very sorry to say that I did not find much evidence of the Holy Spirit emanating from our denomination’s leadership or delegates during my two weeks at General Conference. The Holy Spirit was there, but outside the bar.
[…] — The Rev. Andy Langford, senior minister of Central United Methodist Church in Concord, North Carolina (Link: HERE) […]
We have a complex and compound fracture. We have forces of self interest and bureaucratic turf battles. We have theological and doctrinal variations that are utterly in contradiction to one another. We have political division (red/blue). We have jurisdictions announcing their intent to disobey the express will and action of General Conference in the area of sexuality. We have boards and agencies that simply avoid the spirit of the law of the church through a casuistry that keeps them in business while undermining the votes of General Conference.
The bone is hanging out of the leg and it is broken, not in one but many directions. We are not broken, we are crushed.
We do have a common understanding of what “Disciple of Jesus Christ” is.
Whether it would help or not, I doubt that Andy’s suggestion will be allowed to take hold, at least similar attempts in the past have not. I prefer giving the general conference five percent of local church revenues. Let them live and die, rise and fall based on the giving of local churches. The same for the Annual Conference budgets.
Can dry bones live?
Reading this underscores the problem that is the UMC. In the book of Revelation, there is a passage about being neither hot nor cold, and therefore being spewed out of the mouth. That, to me, is the UMC — neither hot nor cold.
We have the lamentations that the church is not inclusive because it does not embrace the gay agenda that is seemingly pervading our national culture. We have the defenders of the the many institutionsand agencies that have become entrenched over the decades and that literally drain the local church of funds that could be used to evangelize. So, what’s left? What’s left is the segment of the church that truly wants to evangelize and win people to Christ. That’s the segment that gets lost in the shuffle, and consequently the UMC is looked upon as a dying church more caught up in the “social justice” movement than in the Great Commission.
Having been raised in a Methodist home and still being a member of a Methodist church, I have increasingly looked across the church aisles at other denominations. I can’t see myself going to any other dying, mainline denomination, and the free-for-all nature of the independent evangelical churches doesn’t attract me. I miss the great Protestant churches of the past that were commited to Christ and His call to go out into the world and preach the gospel. I am surprised to find myself looking at what might be the re-vitalization of the Roman Catholic Church and being intrigued by the committment of certain Catholics to Christ and their fervor with bringing others to know him. I’m just not ready to “cross the TIber” as they say.
For now, however, I remain in the UMC pew — confounded by the forces assailing this once great denomination, resisting strongly the pull of the national culture to dilute — and, in some instances — displace — the Gospel being preached in the church, and wondering how long the UMC will remain before it, too, like other mainline denominations, is torn asunder.
Scott, well said! I share you concerns and pain about the UMC.