Random Thoughts and Ramblings

Tag: General Conference

  • A Letter to the M.S.A.C. General Conference Delegation

    After a four year delay, the 2020 session of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church is only weeks away. Soon, delegates will gather in Charlotte to debate legislation that will shape the future of our church and, perhaps, decide the future for several of our annual conferences. Mississippi has been hit particularly hard by disaffiliation and there is legislation that would allow disaffiliation to continue in one form or another. I’ve been through this with a congregation and I do not care to go through it again for a myrid of reasons. To that end, I have emailed the delegates (well, the ones I could find email addresses for) and expressed my views on the legislation. Find the contents of that email below. If you would like to contact your delegates to express the same views, feel free to take what I have written and adapt it for your context.

    Above all: Pray for our delegates and the proceedings of General Conference. This one is going to be tense and it’s vital that there is focus on God’s kingdom above all.

    Dear Delegates:

    I greet you in the name of our risen savior Jesus. I pray you all had a great Easter and that you received anew the blessing of resurrection!

    I want to take a moment to say a couple of things. First, know that I’m praying for all of you as General Conference draws near. The time it takes to prepare and the sacrifice of time away has to take a toll and I hope you all don’t think it goes unnoticed. Especially in the difficult season we find ourselves in, I know your jobs are not easy and I appreciate your willingness to serve and to represent Mississippi United Methodists at General Conference.

    With that in mind, we’re all aware of the impact that disaffiliation has had on the Mississippi Annual Conference. I’m not sure how many of you have had to deal with disaffiliation at the church level but I can tell you that it’s painful. When Pleasant Hill in Lucedale disaffiliated, I was serving there. While things were not as ugly as I have heard from other pastors in other appointments, I received my share of vitriol and abuse directed at me from certain individuals because I did not support disaffiliation and would not encourage the congregation to leave. I was accused of not being a real Christian and of being unfaithful to God. In short: It was the most difficult season of ministry I have ever endured (that word was used intentionally). The toll it took on my family was also immense. I’m healing but there was harm done. I can only imagine how much more harm has been done in other places as well as the cumulative harm done to the conference.

    I urge you all to prayfully consider voting against any disaffiliation proposals that come before your committees and the plenary. Our first general rule has been broken numerous times because of Paragraph 2553 and the harm is being continued through the closure policy adopted by the conference trustees. The intent may have been good, but the only thing accomplished is increasing the already tremendous pain being felt throughout our annual conference. Because of how this policy has been implemented, the appointment making process must be a difficult, if not impossible, task right now, due to the uncertainty and the number of congregations that exercised Option C. I predict we will have clergy finding out at annual conference that they will be moving, needless to say a less than ideal situation for all parties involved.

    As a colleague stated in a meeting last year: “Human sexuality is the excuse, but power and property are the reasons.” We should not be enablers of harm any longer.

    I truly believe the future viability of the Mississippi Annual Conference is in your hands and the rest of General Conference. I appreciate your time and consideration of my comments. Please reach out if you have any questions.

    In Christ,

    Rev. Jonathan Tullos

  • “What’s Going to Happen at General Conference?”

    The title reflects the question that I, and I’m sure most UMC pastors, are asked constantly. I always tell my people that I’m not afraid to tell them when I don’t know the answer, and this is the answer I give here. Simply, I don’t know. The pre-conference editions of the Daily Christian Advocate have been released and they contain a ton of legislation. Honestly, I haven’t had a lot of time to review the material. If history holds, the vast majority of the proposed legislation won’t make the floor for a full debate and will be swept into the proverbial dust pile.

    I have seen that there is a lot of interest in a myriad of legislation that would result in the United States becoming a regional conference, operating much the way the central conferences operate. I don’t want to comment on the implications of this because, again, I haven’t had a good opportunity to review everything. I do know that there are multiple pieces of legislation that would have to be passed to bring regionalization about, including changes to the UMC constitution (something that I believe will be a tough sell), which is all the more reason I need more time to review the legislation.

    Since I don’t feel comfortable commenting on legislation, I’d like to comment on what I know will not happen at General Conference. Let’s name it: There are outright lies being spread by people and organizations that are seeking to destroy the United Methodist Church for their own pursuit of power and a perverse desire to “win” at any cost. They want you to believe they are fighting for God when, the truth is, they’re only seeking to fulfill their own ambitions. They’re quick to say that there are decisions that have already been made and want you to believe that they know what the delegates will approve. This is pure fiction. Many of the GC-related questions I field are in response to things shared to incite fear and anger.

    I may not be able to tell you what will happen but I can tell you what will not happen, and share one thing that I do believe will happen.

    The UMC Will Not Reject the Divinity of Jesus or the Virgin Birth

    One of the most popular pieces of misinformation is the notion that the United Methodist Church is set to rid itself of doctrine related to affirming Jesus as divine and the virgin birth. A close second to this notion is that the UMC will embrace universalism and reject Christ as the sole means of salvation. This idea is unfounded and totally without merit.

    Within any church organization, you’re going to have people that don’t affirm every piece of accepted doctrine. We have some people – a very small percentage, I’d say maybe 1% – who do not affirm faith in Christ as the sole means of salvation and the virgin birth. Yes, such people exist in every church. I know for a fact there are Southern Baptists who baptize babies. Separatists have latched on to the words of these few people and asserted that these are the official positions of the UMC and that the delegates will vote to strip the UMC of these points of doctrine.

    First, the only people who speak for the United Methodist Church is General Conference. That’s it. No one else has that authority, period. Not even our bishops can speak on behalf of the entire church. Second: Even if there were a significant number of people wanting to change our doctrine on Jesus and the virgin birth (there aren’t), following through with these desires would be impossible. These doctrines are contained in our Articles of Religion, written by John Wesley himself (well, technically, they were taken from the Church of England and altered somewhat, but I digress) and the 16 articles of the Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren (the UMC came to be when the former Methodist Church and EUB merged in 1968).

    The General Conference does not have the authority to change the Articles of Religion or the Confession of Faith. The United Methodist Church have restrictive rules built in to the constitution that forbids changes.

    Don’t believe me? Here are the relevant portions of the Discipline.

    ¶ 17. Article I.—The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion or establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine.40

    ¶ 18. Article II.—The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Confession of Faith.

    https://www.umc.org/en/content/book-of-discipline-section-iii-restrictive-rules

    The above paragraphcs are part of the UMC’s Constitution that works much like the constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the UMC lays out the powers, responsibilities, restrictions, and authority of entities from the General Conference down to the local church. Making changes to the articles of confession is clearly banned.

    In short: Even if the General Conference delegates wanted to change these doctrines, they can’t. Even attempting to do so would require amending the constitution of the church and this would be an impossible task. Rejecting Jesus and the virgin birth simply are not going to happen.

    Clergy Will Not Be Required to Perform Same-Sex Weddings

    Another fear-mongering tactic is the idea that clergy will be forced to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies or face defrocking. Even if prohibitions against clergy performing same-sex weddings are lifted (I believe that’s not likely to happen this time), I find it hard to believe that clergy would be compelled to solemnize same-sex marriages if their convictions will not allow them to.

    The reason is simple: UMC clergy are currently not under any obligation to perform any weddings. There is nothing in the Discipline that says a pastor must marry two people simply because the pastor is asked to. The Discipline does require clergy to conduct counseling with the couple prior to a wedding. If anything is discovered during that counseling that causes the pastor to believe the couple should not be wed, they can refuse.

    Clergy are currently not obligated to perform any wedding. I do not see that changing.

    What Will Happen: Fundamental Change in the United Methodist Church

    One thing that I do believe will happen is a fundamental shift in how the United Methodist Church is structured and how it operates. The United States lost 25% of its congregations to disaffiliation and there is no way the UMC will continue to operate in the same manner than it did prior to the departures. Structural revamping was already in the works, but disaffiliation has increased the urgency of the restructuring.

    I believe for 2024’s GC, we will see more in the way of budget cuts and perhaps some reshuffling in the general boards. There will also be initial discussions of reform, but I believe any significant restructuring will take place at the upcoming General Conference sessions that will take place between now and 2028.

    What Do You Think?

    What do you believe will happen at GC2024? Leave a comment and let me know what you think!

  • General Conference is Here

    cross-and-flame-color-1058x1818The lead up to the specially called session of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church has been fierce. I have recorded my thoughts here several times on the various plans, Judicial Council decisions, and the actions of organizations like the Wesleyan Covenant Association (and even gotten more than one “talking to” about it). But now, the time of speculation, commentary, and wish making has come and gone.

    General Conference is here.

    While I have been outspoken about a lot of this, I’m afraid that my ultimate hope has been misunderstood somewhat. Here’s what I want for the United Methodist Church: A fresh movement of the Holy Spirit to overpower all of us – the delegates, clergy, laity, and everyone – and cause us to once again bring about the kingdom here. Yes, I would love for us to find a way to continue in ministry together but I also realize that God’s kingdom is much bigger than the UMC. That’s the thing: We are supposed to be about kingdom work. We need to get back to the work of evangelism.

    While some disagree, the biggest problem in the UMC is a lack of evangelistic zeal. We have been so distracted by debating about LGBTQ inclusion that I fear we have forgotten our first love. Regardless of what happens in Saint Louis, we have got to get back to our mission: To make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. We – and I definitely include myself – have been distracted for far too long.

    When the delegates have all gone home and we are calculating the fallout from Saint Louis, the “last, the least, and the lost” will still be there in the world. They are thirsty for redemption and for new life. No resolution, plan, or debate is going to save them; only Jesus Christ can do that. It’s up to us to reach out and show that love to them.

    I have my convictions and I am prepared to stand by them. Support your chosen plan, make your voice heard (with the knowledge that it’s the delegates who will ultimately decide). But no matter what does or doesn’t happen, can we all agree that we have got to get back to work for Jesus? If nothing else, I hope we can agree on that.

    I am praying for our delegates, the bishops who will preside, and for the church as a whole as General Conference begins. I hope you will too. Below are some ways to follow along in real time if you would like. Above all, pray… And then act.

    Streaming link
    Social Media Hashtags: #UMC, #GC2019, #UMCGC

  • WCA Leaving Regardless? It Seems Possible

    StillUMI have not been very quiet about my issues with the Wesleyan Covenant Association ever since I realized their tactics. Recently, I met with someone who is high in the WCA leadership at the conference leadership and we had a nice long chat over coffee. I do appreciate his willingness to meet with me and I do believe he earnestly listened to my concerns. He was very sincere in his answers as well. I still felt uneasy about WCA after our meeting so I have maintained my distance.

    Ever since Rev. Brian Collier was allowed to remain part of WCA’s leadership council in spite of WCA’s insistence that it existed to strengthen orthodox ministry within the United Methodist Church and in spite of the fact that Collier led his congregation (The Orchard) out of the United Methodist Church, I felt like some of my suspicions were correct. At the time, I felt that WCA was likely planning to form a new denomination and to leave the UMC at some point.

    I hate to use the term “I told you so” but, well, I told you so.

    Last night, Mainstream UMC released a letter, purported to have been sent out by the North Alabama chapter of WCA, detailing plans for WCA after the specially-called session of General Conference in a couple of weeks. It would seem that unless WCA gets their way – or even if they do get their way – they are planning to take their ball and go play in a yard that they will make. Also, as of this moment, no one from WCA or WCA itself has refuted the contents of this letter (if this happens, I will edit this post to indicate such).

    WCA has set April 25-26  as the dates for the convening conference of the “Next Methodism.” Further, they have apparently had a team of leaders working together on how the denomination will be set up, core beliefs, etc. Many of these were adopted at WCA’s last gathering. So, what are the chances of WCA actually leaving? Per the letter:

    If the One Church Plan is passed, there is a 100% probability of calling the convening conference. Our current evaluation is that the proponents of the One Church Plan do not have the necessary votes to enact that plan.

    If the special General Conference adopts neither the One Church Plan nor the Modified Traditional Plan, or adopts a Traditional Plan with no enhanced accountability provisions, there is a 70% probability of calling the convening conference. Our current evaluation is that this is the most likely outcome for the special General Conference.

    If the special General Conference adopts the Modified Traditional Plan with the enhanced accountability provisions, there still may be churches which are intent on departing from the United Methodist Church. The WCA will work with those churches to transition into a new Methodist movement. Those churches which indicate a desire to be part of something new will be invited to a convening conference. Other churches would be given the opportunity to move to what is new at a later time, if they decided that became advisable. Our current evaluation is that there is a higher probability of the Modified Traditional Plan being adopted than the One Church Plan being adopted.

    So, basically, WCA – or at least a significant portion of their organization – will likely leave no matter what happens in Saint Louis. In other words, they have already broken covenant.

    Now is not the time to be making plans for departure. WCA has maintained that they were only making “contingency plans” but this is far from a contingency. This is a certainty at this point. I further believe that once the rubber meets the road, WCA is not going to have as much support as they believe they will. I personally know several conservatives who will not be joining them. I know many congregations that hold orthodox beliefs that will not be joining them either. Of course, I could be wrong but I truly believe that that limb they’re going out on is going to be a little lonely. None the less, I do believe that a lot of clergy and laity are going to depart with them. May God be with them and with us. I will not, however, be joining them in WCA or whatever WCA becomes.

    I, for one, believe in actually keeping covenant.

  • The Judicial Council (Mostly) Got It Right

    cross-and-flame-color-1058x1818Today, the #UMC hashtag on social media has been abuzz with conversation about the Judicial Council’s ruling on the plans put forth for consideration at our special session of General Conference in February. The Council of Bishops had asked for a ruling on the constitutionality of the three main proposals in order to avoid any confusion and in hopes of as little conflict as possible in the voting process. Today, the ruling came down and I believe they got a lot of it right while I wish they had ruled differently on other things. But, this is why they are appointed to interpret our church law and why I am not. You may read the full ruling here.

    I have been outspoken on my objection to the so-called One Church Plan because I feel that the proposal would seriously alter the polity of the United Methodist Church. Currently, we are a connectional/episcopal church, which means that we are bound by common doctrine, church law, and standards (at least we are supposed to be). Certain powers are given to the Annual Conference and to the bishops to administer rules but ultimately it’s the General Conference who makes decisions on matters that impact the entire church. One Church, as it has been presented, would open the door to a “local option” whereby Annual Conferences and congregations would be able to decide for themselves on matters that are normally left up to the General Conference to decide. The Council found that One Church is mostly constitutional except for a few minor provisions that are mostly inconsequential to the larger body of the plan. Regarding One Church, the ruling states,

    As a primary principle in any organizational structure of The United Methodist Church, connectionalism denotes a vital web of interactive relationships—multi-leveled, global in scope, and local in thrust—that permits contextualization and differentiation on account of geographical, social, and cultural variations and makes room for diversity of beliefs and theological perspectives but does not require uniformity of moral-ethical standards regarding ordination, marriage, and human sexuality.

    In other words, the ruling is that the constitution of the church allows for “contextualization” as is the practice for many of our African and European central conferences. I understand what they’re saying and they are correct. But I still wish that we would not potentially be allowing annual conferences and congregations to decide on their own what they will and will not do on decisions relating to human sexuality. This impacts the entire church and serves to only further fragment the body. Ultimately, this defeats the purpose of and undercuts our current polity. I hope that the delegates to General Conference will take this matter into consideration.

    Regarding the Connectional Conference proposal, Judicial Council essentially said that they have no grounds to rule on this proposal as it contains the necessary amendments to the Constitution to make it legal.

    The Judicial Council was most critical of the Traditionalist Plan. I have not said as much about this plan but I have had many concerns about this proposal. Basically, I am not comfortable with the idea that boards of Ordained Ministry and district Committees on Ministry would essentially be asked to engage in witch hunts and that anyone who is even potentially a homosexual could be tossed out without recourse. I have had some grave concerns about these aspects of the plan and, apparently, I wasn’t alone. Out of the 17 petitions that make up Traditionalist Plan, the Judicial Council found issues with nine of them. Seven of them were found to be unconstitutional in their entirety. It’s safe to say that the Traditionalist Plan is effectually been gutted. From the ruling:

    Under the principle of legality, the General Conference can prescribe or prescribe a particular conduct but cannot contradict itself by prescribing prohibited conduct or prohibiting prescribed conduct. It can require bishops, annual conferences, nominees, and members of boards of ordained ministry to certify or declare that they will uphold The Discipline in its entirety and impose sanctions in case of non-compliance. But it may not choose standards related to ordination, marriage, and human sexuality over other provisions of The Discipline for enhanced application and certification. The General Conference has the authority to require that the board of ordained ministry conduct a careful and thorough examination to ascertain if an individual meets all disciplinary requirements and certify that such an examination has occurred. But it cannot reduce the scope of the board examination to one aspect only and unfairly single out one particular group of candidates (self-avowed practicing homosexuals) for disqualification. Marriage and sexuality are but two among numerous standards candidates must meet to be commissioned or ordained; other criteria include, for example, being committed to social justice, racial and gender equality, and personal and financial integrity, that all should be part of a careful and thorough examination.

    TL, DR: We are not allowed to pick and choose which parts of the breaking of covenant can be scrutinized and which can continue to be ignored and swept under the rug.

    Many have said that the Traditionalist Plan is now dead but I do not see it that way. Anything and everything can be amended when General Conference convenes at St. Louis in February. General Conference can adopt any plan that has been proposed, make their own plan, or adopt no plan at all (which I feel is unlikely). I am glad that the Judicial Council addressed many of the concerns I have had about the Traditionalist Plan.

    I have no interest in witch hunts and will not take part in them.

    Regardless of how you may feel about the proposals, I urge you to be in prayer for the United Methodist Church as the future of the church is very much at stake. Dialogue with your conference’s delegates and express (kindly and civilly) your views.

    Above all, let’s remember that we are the church and act like it.