Group 1 Proposed Constitutional Amendments on the Worldwide Nature of the Church

Gleanings from documents prepared by other sources on Proposed Constitutional Amendments For use by members of the West Virginia Annual Conference in preparation for 2009 Annual Conference Session It would be ideal if each of us were able to read all that has been written on the proposed constitutional amendments. The following rationales have been gleaned from many documents and web sources to give a representation of the positions taken by different people and constituencies concerning the proposed constitutional amendments. Only persons or groups who have been quoted in multiple sources have been acknowledged within the document. We have tried to present a variety of opinions as we have found them expressed throughout the church. Where facts are used (rather than opinions), we have done our best to verify their accuracy. It is our hope that by reading the opinions of others, you may be able, through prayer and discernment, to find the direction you feel God is leading The United Methodist Church. The amendments have been bundled in a schema that was used by the West Ohio Conference delegation in its discernment process; we have found this arrangement to be useful to our task of providing these gleanings. Original Sources include: Newscope; Virginia Annual Conference Listening Posts held in March 2009; General Conference Debates; UMPortal.org; West Ohio Annual Conference Delegation; Methodist Federation for Social Action; The Confessing Movement; General Commission on the Status and Role of Women; Facebook group on proposed Constitutional Amendments; various Annual Conference websites; the Judicial Council of The United Methodist Church; and the Global Nature of the Church Task Force. Most of the above can be found by googling Constitutional Amendments UMC. Group 1 Proposed Constitutional Amendments on the Worldwide Nature of the Church Amendments IV, X, XXIII, XXVI (4, 10, 23, 26) These proposed constitutional amendments allow the General Conference to create similar structures for all of our world wide church. Each Annual Conference would belong to a Regional Conference. In the United States a Regional Conference would be able to organize sub units called Jurisdictional Conferences. General information about Worldwide Nature Amendments: The proposed amendments do NOT change: o the number, purpose or function of Jurisdictional Conferences o the way bishops are elected or assigned o the purpose, number or scope of any general agency o the size or power of General Conference o the way the Social Principles are decided upon or amended o the way money is apportioned or allocated (The Global Nature of the Church Task Force, http://www.worldwideumc.org/) The proposed amendments DO: o make constitutional changes of the terminology central conference to regional conference o make constitutional changes allowing a future General Conference to create structures for regional and jurisdictional conferences that are the same everywhere in the United Methodist Church o aid the continued study and a report to the 2012 General Conference by the Connectional Table and Council of Bishops (The Global Nature of the Church Task Force, http://www.worldwideumc.org/) Gleanings on Proposed Constitutional Amendments Page 1

Specifically, the proposed constitutional amendments will prepare the way for The United Methodist Church in the United States to be structured as a regional conference or regional conferences (per Judicial Council ruling 1100). This structure would provide a venue for The United Methodist Church in the United States to address issues unique to this nation. Creating the possibility of similar structures across our worldwide denomination will enable the witness of the global community of faith within our connectional spirit and structure, increase a sense of parity in decision making across the UMC, and strengthen on going discussion about specific structural changes to be proposed. Without constitutional changes in place, no plan submitted by the study committee in 2012 could be launched until at least 2016. (UM Portal: http://umportal.org/article.asp?id=5137) It s time to de center (away from U.S. centered) our perspective on the church We ve struggled with this for some time. The question is how far do we go? Should the Social Principles be de centered? The local church? Our orders of ministry? (Lew Parks, Virginia Conference) Non U.S. bishops unanimously voted in favor of the plan that would allow the most important and unifying decisions to be made by General Conference. Regional conferences would make other decisions. Kansas Area Bishop Scott Jones, chair of the Study Committee on the Worldwide Nature of the Church, said that the creation of a U.S. regional body would not change General Conference s authority over distinctly connectional matters. These amendments would be of great help for U.S. churches to discuss issues like the hymnal, new church plants/starts, seminaries, the Black College Fund and other issues that are unique to us. We ought to allow local church ministry and committee structure to be different in Africa than it is here. But the 1989 United Methodist Hymnal is still the official hymnal for the Congo. That s crazy. (Bishop Jones) The current structure, which grants Central Conferences the power and duty to change and adapt the general Discipline ( 31.5 in Section V of the Constitution; 543.16), assumes that U.S. polity is normative and that versions of the Discipline outside of the U.S. are (albeit sanctioned) deviations from that norm. These constitutional amendments correct the assumption that the U.S. churches set the norm. Currently, economic and political power in The United Methodist Church is centered in the United States. This damages our witness as the body of Christ and disempowers central conferences. General Conference will remain in charge of resolutions on global issues. General Conference will remain in charge of all matters of doctrine, including the Social Principles. No specific plan for restructuring of The United Methodist Church around regional conferences has been presented or agreed upon. The passage of these amendments requiring the creation of regional conference(s) in the United States is premature. Changing central to regional is a not a substantive change, but would allow the creation of a U.S. regional conference. (Rev. Eddie Fox, Director of Evangelism, World Methodist Church) Judicial Council Decision 110 states that if this amendment is approved, the 2012 General Conference must enact enabling legislation in order to create a U.S. regional conference or regional conferences. The United Methodist Constitution requires a super majority for passage of amendments to ensure that fundamental revisions of our doctrine, polity and missional structure are not made without clear understanding of the new directions being proposed. Passage of these amendments could clear away this protective standard and allow a future General Conference to enact sweeping changes by a simple majority. The creation of a regional conference centered in the United States may cause an inward focus and create greater distance in the relationship between The United Methodist Church in the United States and our United Methodist church in other parts of the world. Gleanings on Proposed Constitutional Amendments Page 2

In 2008, 64% of the membership is in the U.S.; when we meet in 2012, the ratio could be close to 50%. Why take this action now when the growth of our church outside the United States has a positive, needed impact on our life together? (Rev. Fox). Group 2 Proposed Constitutional Amendments on the Worldwide Nature of the Church Amendments III, V, VII, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XVI, XVIII, XX, XXI, XXIV, XXV, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI, XXXII. (3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32) These proposed Constitutional amendments would change the nomenclature for areas outside the United States of America from central conferences to regional conferences: The same rationale FOR discussed in support of Amendments IV, X, XIII, XXVI is applicable to these amendments. These constitutional amendments changing the nomenclature from central to regional conferences are important in disassociating ourselves from past racist structures in Methodism. From the formation of The Methodist Church in 1939 until the formation of The United Methodist Church in 1968, the church perpetuated and institutionalized patterns of racism through the racially segregated central jurisdiction structure in the United States. Changing the nomenclature for the current central conferences outside the United States to regional conferences will further distance us from a racist past and affirm our desire to set aside racial barriers. The central label holds reminders of a racist, paternalistic past, when U.S. bishops were assigned to lead the church overseas. Central conferences, Bishop Jones noted, are no longer foreign outposts of a U.S. church, because more than a third of United Methodists now live in Africa, Europe and Asia. (UM Portal: http://umportal.org/article.asp?id=5137) The same rationale AGAINST discussed in opposition to Amendments IV, X, XIII, XXVI is applicable to these amendments. These amendments are a part of a package of proposed constitutional changes which are premature and flawed. While these amendments do not create any structural changes, the entire group of amendments should be set aside until a clearer plan of re structuring is agreed upon. The word central was used to describe conferences outside of the U.S. long before the segregated central jurisdiction was created in 1939. Group 3 Amendment I Dealing with Paragraph 4 Proposed constitutional amendment I emphasizes the wideness of God s mercy and the availability of the ministry of the church to all. Amendment I revises language in Division One, 4, Article IV specifying that The United Methodist Church is in ministry to all. Additionally, more detailed language about race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition is replaced with all persons. The United Methodist Church is committed to being in ministry to and with all persons as we make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. This means that we are committed to inclusiveness. This amendment strengthens our commitment by placing clearer and broader language in the constitutional article which most directly deals with the Inclusiveness of the Church. The proposed Gleanings on Proposed Constitutional Amendments Page 3

amendment replaces cumbersome lists identifying race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition with succinct and direct language. Paragraph 4 is written specifically to ensure that people will not be excluded from the life of the church. The list of protected groups contains many, but not all of the groups of persons who have often been discriminated against. When such a list is created, the danger exists that in seeking to be comprehensive, some will be omitted. As it currently reads, for example, women and persons with disabilities, two groups who have experienced tremendous discrimination, have not been included. (MFSA) The word status that is currently found in 4 is nowhere defined in the Discipline and is open to interpretation and disagreement. The word all simply states the intention of the paragraph: that all people are welcome. Currently, 4 does not protect specifically against discrimination based upon gender. If this amendment is rejected, women will remain outside of the explicit protection of our Constitution. (General Commission on the Status and Role of Women) The witness of Scripture and our tradition call us to affirm that the Church is in ministry to all persons. (General Commission on the Status and Role of Women) This amendment clarifies that no member of any constituent body can be barred from membership in The United Methodist Church so long as that person is prepared to take vows declaring the Christian faith and relationship with Jesus Christ (see vows of membership, United Methodist Hymnal). The Discipline of the United Methodist Church has been used to exclude persons who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered from membership in the church. In the past, The Discipline of the United Methodist Church has also been used to exclude women and people of color from full and equal participation in the life of the church. This amendment clarifies that all are welcome as members. The Discipline of the United Methodist Church is silent on the issue of pastors determining readiness. That was dropped from The Discipline when pastors were using it to bar membership in the church on the basis of skin color. Inclusiveness is a part of our Wesleyan heritage and United Methodist ethos. We extend the love and grace of Jesus Christ to all. If we can exclude persons from becoming a member, how does this affect members who transfer local churches within our denomination? The proposed amendment could be used as a foundation by the Judicial Council to overturn current UM Disciplinary positions related to homosexuality. Our practice and tradition in Methodism allow the pastor to have a role in determining readiness for membership. The term all is so broad it could negate a pastor s or congregation s discernment in matters of membership. The passage of the proposed amendment could provide a constitutional foundation for the Judicial Council to reinterpret their Decision No. 1032. The analysis of that decision states, The appointed pastor in charge has the duty and responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in determining who may be received into the membership of a local church. (Confessing Movement). Judicial Council Decision 1032 supported the decision of a Virginia pastor who refused membership to a man, who is a self avowed, practicing homosexual. While some believe that this amendment is an appropriate remedy, others believe the broad implications of this amendment for the meaning of membership, pastoral authority and the responsibility of local church leaders make it ill advised. Gleanings on Proposed Constitutional Amendments Page 4

Group 4 Amendment XIX (19) Dealing with Paragraph 35 This Amendment would expand the ability to vote for General and Jurisdictional Conference delegates to associate members, and those provisional members who have completed all of their educational requirements and local pastors who have completed the Course of Study or an M. Div. degree and have served a minimum of two consecutive years under appointment immediately preceding the election. To offer equality to associate members, local pastors and provisional members who serve as pastors in our local congregations frequently in smaller membership churches that are located in both urban and town and country settings serving marginalized populations. To enable these persons to have their voices and perspectives heard through the elected delegates at General and Jurisdictional Conferences. Voting rights should be linked with conference membership, not ordination, which parallels language 36 concerning laity. The two years under appointment allow the pastor to gain an appreciation of the annual conference as a clergy member within the United Methodist Church. This proposed amendment would not affect: o Voting on matters of ordination, character, and conference relations, o Clergy delegates to General and Jurisdictional Conference; these must be Full Members of the Annual Conference o Appointment as District Superintendent and election as Bishop, which are reserved to ordained elders There is continued growth in the number of Local Pastors and Associate Members in the US: o 1988 4,983 Local Pastors 1,672 Associate members Total 6,655 o 2008 7,258 Local Pastors 2,037 Associate Members Total 9,295 The United Methodist Rural Fellowship estimates that approximately 6,807 additional persons would be granted the right to vote on representation for General and Jurisdictional Conferences. Ordained clergy are ordained within the covenant of the office and the order, which licensed local pastors and associate members are not. It is this covenant community which selects the clergy delegates to General and Jurisdictional Conference. This constitutional amendment further separates us from the historic ecumenical connection with the Anglican Church and others: a connection which John Wesley valued and sought to maintain as he began to order the life of the Methodist Church in America. Full Members of the annual conference have official training in UM polity, history, and doctrine as well as years of experience in leadership within those areas in the annual conference. If passed, this amendment erodes the difference between elder and local pastor, thus undermining our historic plan of itinerancy. The 2008 General Conference voted to continue the Study of Ministry Commission through the next quadrennium. As their 2012 report will most likely have major implications for clergy categories, we should wait for the report of the commission before we pass this amendment. As the rules currently stand, only ordained clergy can vote for ordained Elders and Deacons to be clergy delegates to General and Jurisdictional Conferences. This amendment will give the right to vote for ordained Elder and Deacon Delegates to persons who o have not been ordained (Local Pastors are examined and approved) o have not answered the historical questions asked of those who are ordained, including: Whether they believe our doctrines are in harmony with Scripture and if they will teach and maintain them. Gleanings on Proposed Constitutional Amendments Page 5

Whether they approve of our Church government and polity and if they will support and maintain them. Group 5 Miscellaneous Amendments II, VI, VIII, IX, XV, XVII, XXII (2, 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, 22) Amendment II The proposed amendment requires the adoption of ethics and conflict of interest policies to ensure accountability and fiduciary integrity. Would require ethics and conflict of interest policies which would not be subjected to continual changes in Disciplinary policies Was overwhelmingly approved by General Conference (90% voted for) The mandatory language in the Constitution is too broad. It might be interpreted to require every group in each local United Methodist Church to impose ethics and conflict of interest policies. Legislation is already being drafted for the 2012 General Conference by Conference Chancellors to place appropriate ethics and conflict of interest policy requirement in the Book of Discipline Amendment VI This amendment provides an avenue for General Conference to establish representation for newly created conferences on a non proportional basis under certain circumstances for a transitional time period. The Methodist Church of Cote d Ivoire applied for and was granted membership in the United Methodist Church at the 2004 General Conference with the provision for less representation at General Conference 2008 than their membership would require. An ensuing Judicial Council decision determined that the limited representation would stand despite no provision for transitional status in the Constitution. This amendment rectifies this circumstance of uncertainty. A transitional status allows General Conference to receive new bodies into the UMC while permitting time to determine accurate membership data. This amendment deprives new conferences and bodies joining The United Methodist Church of equal representation and creates a two class system of representation at General Conference. The permissive language of the amendment ( may ) opens the door to unequal and potentially prejudicial treatment of conferences and bodies seeking affiliation with The United Methodist Church. Many people who oppose this amendment also believe that the 2004 General Conference action to admit the Cote d Ivoire Annual Conference was illegal because The Discipline does not provide for a transitional period. If that is so, then The Judicial Council inappropriately affirmed that illegal action. Retroactively amending the constitution to correct previous errors is not good policy. Gleanings on Proposed Constitutional Amendments Page 6

Amendment VIII The amendment recommends adding gender to the categories of persons protected against discriminatory treatment in the denomination s global foundations document. Given our long standing work in eliminating gender bias and sexual misconduct in the Church, it is natural that gender should be included in the duties of the General Conference. This amendment will provide this inclusiveness. For the Church to model the community of Jesus Christ, our ministries must not be based on the norms of our cultures regarding gender, but based on love lived in action, following the mandate of Christ. In keeping with our position on 4, our preference would be that 16 not contain lists of people, but at this point we must vote whether or not to approve the amendments as they are before us. Annual conferences do not have the option of suggesting amendments to these amendments. We recommend support. (MFSA) May challenge cultural norms in some areas of the world. Amendment IX This amendment will ensure a minimum basis of support for the election of bishops at Jurisdictional Conferences. All Jurisdictional Conferences shall have the same status and the same privileges of action within the limits fixed by the Constitution. Since Bishops are elected at Jurisdictional Conferences, it is important to ensure some minimum basis of support for election. This will establish a minimum number of delegates to Jurisdictional Conference. Rational AGAINST Would require small jurisdictions to have a minimum number of delegates, which increases their costs. Amendment XV Proposed Constitutional Amendment XV allows the General Conference to define laity and clergy membership of the annual conference without going through the complicated process of changing the constitution. The proposed amendment simplifies the process by allowing the definition of laity and clergy of the annual conference to be defined by the General Conference without going through the process of changing the constitution. This portion of The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, Section VI, Article 1 of the Constitution, has been amended 16 times since 1968. The constitution is the logical place to define the clergy members of the annual conference. Changing the definition should be a very intentional decision, with deliberation and agreement by the annual conferences through the process of changing the constitution. Since only Constitutional Amendments are voted on by 2/3 vote of all members of each Annual Conference, Annual Conference would no longer have a say in the definition of lay and clergy membership of Annual Conference. Passage of this amendment would open up the possibility that the definition of clergy membership in Annual Conference could be changed every four years by a simple majority vote of General Conference, and Annual Conference would not have a voice. (MFSA) Gleanings on Proposed Constitutional Amendments Page 7

Amendment XVII Proposed Constitutional Amendment XVII supports reinstatement of legislation adopted by the 2004 General Conference (and subsequently declared unconstitutional by the Judicial Council) to allow lay persons on the Conference Committee on Investigation to vote on matters of ordination, character, and conference relations of clergy. The United Methodist Church has been intentional in approving legislation allowing participation of laity on Conference Boards of Ordained Ministry and District Committees on Ordained Ministry with voice and vote. As such, lay members of the Conference Boards of Ministry and District Boards of Ministry are invited to attend the Clergy Session of Annual Conference and may vote on matters of ordination, character, and conference relations of clergy. Lay members of Annual Conference Committees on Investigation have both voice and vote which means they have already investigated charges that have been brought about clergy and have participated in the committee vote concerning matters of ordination, character and conference relations and have been a part of careful discernment regarding those decisions and the implications of such. The traditional relationship between laity and clergy in which laity cannot vote on matters of ordination, character, and conference relations of clergy should remain. By virtue of their ordination to Word, Sacrament, Service, and Order, the clergy who are in covenant with one another should retain the historic authority to determine matters of ordination, character, and conference relations of their clergy peers. Like similar professional associations, clergy should uphold their own professional standards. If this constitutional amendment is affirmed, provision would need to be made to invite lay members of the Conference Committee of Investigation to participate in the Clergy Session at Annual Conference with voice and vote. There is currently no provision for lay members of the Committee on Investigation to attend the Clergy Session of Annual Conference. If approved, laity who have experienced a portion of a complaint process against one minister would be seated in the clergy session and would vote on all matters relating to the character, ordination and conference relations of all the clergy. (MFSA) Amendment XXII Proposed Constitutional Amendment XXII allows Bermuda to be added before Connecticut in the listing of the Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference. The proposed amendment formally recognizes that the Baltimore Washington Conference has been appointing pastors, superintending the congregations, and integrating the congregations of Bermuda into the life of the Baltimore Washington Conference. The General Board of Global Ministries and the Baltimore Washington Conference recognize these churches as United Methodist congregations. The proposed amendment would make official what is already being done in practice. Bermuda is a British territory that is geographically distant from the rest of the Northeastern Jurisdiction. Gleanings on Proposed Constitutional Amendments Page 8