GC 2020 – More on Provisional Affiliation

GC 2020 – More on Provisional Affiliation

Frank Holbrook 2 GC 2020

Yesterday’s post proposed creating a new status for Annual Conferences and Local Churches called “Provisional Affiliation”. The relevant portion of the post read as follows “the General Conference should consider creating a status called Provisional Affiliation. This status would only exist for a given period of time. Provisional affiliation would allow an Annual Conference or Local Church to indicate that it is committed to joining a new expression if the new expression reaches the defined critical mass. If the new expression fails to reach the critical mass then the provisional affiliation becomes null and void and the entity remains in the United Methodist Church. This is certainly an outside the box concept, but to deal with the difficult issues facing GC 2020 some outside the box thinking will be required.” This post considers the Provisional Affiliation concept in more detail.

 

The BOD currently allows Provisional Annual Conferences at ¶¶580-583. Multiple other provisions of the BOD address Provisional Central Conferences and Provisional Clergy. Clearly the concept of something or someone being provisional is not an alien concept to the United Methodist Church.

 

How might Provisional Affiliation work? I’m glad you asked.

 

After a new expression is formed, local churches would have the opportunity to explore the possibility of affiliating with a new expression. If after conducting its discernment process the local church decided that the new expression was its best possible future path it would execute an affiliation agreement. That agreement would be a commitment to join the new expression at a future date if certain conditions are met.

 

However, entering an affiliation agreement would not strip the local church of its membership in the United Methodist Church nor its rights, responsibilities and commitments under the BOD. Since the commitment is a provisional one that takes place in the future, the local church would not be serving two masters, i.e. both the United Methodist Church and the new expression.

 

Yesterday’s post identified “critical mass” as one of the conditions. That critical mass might be 50, 100 or some other number of churches or charges currently recognized collectively by Annual Conferences of the United Methodist Church. That number could be set by the GC after considering all points of view.

 

A second condition may or may not be needed to address the issue of Local Churches departing an Annual Conference before the Annual Conference has had an opportunity to take a vote on affiliating with new expressions. If critical mass is the only criteria then the agreement might be triggered and the local church exit the UMC before the local church’s Annual Conference meets. Perhaps a second criteria would be one tied to the fact that a local church’s Annual Conference must have had an opportunity to vote on new expressions before the agreement is triggered. Under the Constitution and the doctrine of legality if this second criteria is added it is probably improper to prevent a Local church from participating in an affiliation vote while the local church is still a member of the Annual Conference. But would allowing such participation while an Affiliation Agreement is pending necessarily be a bad thing? I think not. It would give a reason for a Local Church to stay engaged with the Annual conference as the AC makes its decision whether to join a new expression.

 

I suggested that the Provisional Affiliation provisions be temporary. I believe the church should recognize that the option of joining a new expression should not be a right that exists in perpetuity. The Provisional Affiliation is a stop gap measure to assist the church in sorting itself out. The GC should allow a Local church to provisionally affiliate during the same time window that will be created for an Annual Conference potentially to join a new expression.

 

A few additional aspects of Provisional Affiliation would also make the process of creating new expressions easier. The GC could provide that when an Annual Conference votes to affiliate with a new expression, any church that has previously executed a Provisional Affiliation Agreement with a different qualified new expression will automatically become a member of its chosen new expression upon the adjournment of the Annual Conference where the vote is taken. This transfer would be subject to the departing church meeting the requirements of all BOD gracious exit provisions. This is at least a partial solution to the “shotgun wedding” problem. When the Annual Conference as a body decides to join a new expression it will be recognizing that some local churches automatically will be leaving to pursue a different vision.

 

Two side benefits of this approach also commend it. First, if a Local Church automatically becomes a member of a new expression based on its Annual Conference moving in a new direction, it will know the location and people of other churches in its new connection. Some of those churches are likely to be within the geographic bounds of its former Annual Conference. Churches joining a different new expression will be less likely to be isolated. In addition, by allowing provisional affiliation, new expressions can begin to develop geographic boundaries of its Annual and Jurisdictional Conferences. If Methodism is serious about connectionalism, this seems to be a way to foster connectionalism in new expressions.

 

A second side benefit is a more orderly transition of clergy appointments. If a Bishop knows which local churches will be departing if an Annual Conference moves in a new direction then the appointment process preceding a vote on joining a new expression should be easier. Sorting out clergy and local church preferences for new expressions will be a difficult problem that the Episcopacy faces under any plan that creates space between new expressions. Provisional Affiliation might help make the problem more manageable.

 

The appointment aspect brings up a related thought. Would it be possible for Clergy to also engage in Provisional Affiliation? One of the problems of moving an Annual Conference en masse to a new expression is the practical problem that many clergy might not fully support the new expression that they have been forced to join. To date this type of problem has caused principled disobedience that has weakened the connection in the UMC. One only has to look at the human sexuality debate and the principled disobedience that exists over that issue to appreciate the corrosive effect this problem has on the bonds of connection. It has been destructive to the connection both to expect Clergy to take vows to uphold standards they don’t believe and to permit such action to occur. Why force new expressions to be saddled with this ongoing problem?

 

There is also a caveat. To date, my posts have not addressed the issues of property allocation. Provisional Affiliation assumes that a church joining a new expression will be bound by, and fulfill, the BOD’s gracious exit provisions. I believe those provisions are currently inadequate if new expressions, as a way of getting the right mix of unity and space, are to be encouraged by GC 2020. As I often write, that’s another post for another day.

 

I close with a clarification. In retrospect, throughout my posts my language has taken a very U.S. centric view of the issue of creating new expressions. I have not intended to ignore the Central Conference aspects of this process. Many times in my own mind when I have used the term “Annual Conferences” I have intended for the same process to include Annual Conferences and Central Conferences. Thus, I didn’t feel the need to make a distinction. As one who believes that the United Methodist Church is stronger because it is a global connection, I apologize if some have taken my posts to suggest that whatever GC decides regarding new expressions or unity is really an issue that only concerns U.S. Churches. I believe that the main presenting issues of the unity debate, i.e. human sexuality issues, although serious and nuanced issues, are an example of the U.S. tail wagging the universal and global church dog. The same could be said of issues such as pensions, the trust clause and enforcement of the BOD. Each of these issues, although important to the institutional church, can easily become a distraction from the mission of creating disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. My intent is to shine a light on how best to achieve the bigger mission, not to advocate for a position on a smaller issue. Thanks for reading and reflecting.

RELATED BLOG

2 comments found

GC 2020: The Plain Grace Plan – PlaneGrace August 14th, 2019

[…] – The Christmas Gift that Keeps on Giving and the post More on Provisional Affiliation found here. Soliciting Provisional Affiliation would be permitted as soon as approval was received from the […]

GC 2020: 1784 – The Christmas Gift that Keeps on Giving – PlaneGrace August 6th, 2019

[…] out of this unresolvable problem; the General Conference should consider creating a status called Provisional Affiliation.  This status would only exist for a given period of time.  Provisional affiliation would allow […]