Ethics Considered

Traditionalist United Methodists are making plans to launch the Global Methodist Church. This would be their new church home upon leaving The United Methodist Church (UMC). Heather Hahn, assistant editor of United Methodist News, has written a helpful background article. What do centrists need to know about this proposed denomination?

To answer this question, I have examined their Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline (updated October 10, 2021), which offers a glimpse of the kind of church imagined by members of the Wesleyan Covenant Association and their allies. This denominational blueprint provides a lot of detail, grist for debate, but there is also a lot unstated. One could easily get into the weeds of itinerancy, sacramental privilege of deacons, election and term of bishops, educational requirements for ordination, no trust clause, the definition of “valid Christian baptism,” exclusively masculine language for God, and of course the pages and pages of judicial administration. Steve West does a good job naming the most critical features of the Transitional Book in his open letter to Chris Ritter. I will focus on what I consider to be the most problematic issues: control, privilege, and patronage.

Control. Conservatives in the UMC have long lamented the theological pluralism of this denomination. Through church law and judicial enforcement, they have fought to reign in a denomination considered out of control. The Transitional Book serves as a corrective. First and foremost is an emphasis on right doctrine. The first few pages of this 103-page document emphasize orthodoxy, “settled doctrines and discipline,” canon, creed, authority, protection, preservation, fidelity, and accountability. The book provides “constitutive standards” as “a bulwark against false teaching” (para. 106).

How are true teachings discerned? There is no Wesleyan quadrilateral to be found in the Transitional Book. Scripture is touted not only as containing “all things necessary to salvation” (UMC Article of Religion V) but is also considered “the primary rule and authority for faith, morals, and service” (para. 104). Scripture is the moral rulebook. Apparently, the bulwark requires more than scripture, though, as adherents must affirm and are held accountable to the doctrinal standards and moral statements. The paragraphs of Social Witness assume a “consensus vision transcending cultures” when interpreting and “affirming a scriptural view of sexuality and gender,” for example (paras. 201–202). Not surprisingly, this “scriptural view” consists of heteronormativity, marriage, and a gender binary: “We believe that human sexuality is a gift of God that is to be affirmed as it is exercised within the legal and spiritual covenant of a loving and monogamous marriage between one man and one woman” (para. 202.7). Gender is “defined throughout this Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline by a person’s immutable biological traits identified by or before birth” (para. 306).

This attempt to provide a culture-free “consensus vision” ignores the multivocal witness of scripture as well as science. While admitting a role for scientific knowledge, “we encourage dialogue between faith and science as mutual witnesses to God’s creative power” (para. 202.4), the Global Methodist Church’s understanding of sexuality and gender seems uninformed by science. This impression is confirmed a 22-page document produced by the Wesleyan Covenant Association’s Task Force on Sexual Brokenness (December 2021). The writing team set out “seeking the wisdom of our God who is love through Scripture and our Wesleyan heritage.” The Traditionalist understandings of sexuality and gender, as explained in these documents, has nothing to do with science. Instead, the writers asserted what they call “our Christian sexual counterculture” in the face of “the clash of cultures between the Kingdom and our earthly surroundings” (pp. 8–9). This stance begs the question, Who are the arbiters of this Christian counterculture?

Privilege. The interpretation of scripture and tradition controlling the Global Methodist Church and its members’ moral behavior is shaped by white, US privilege. The Social Witness statement in the Transitional Book provides clues. It does not speak as the poor; it speaks about the poor (who are presumed not to have Jesus). There is no solidarity here. There is a presumption of privilege when offering Jesus, alms, and protection to the “less fortunate” and “those who may be powerless to protect themselves” (paras. 201–202).

The presumption of privilege is no accidental feature of the Transitional Book. Privilege is an inherent feature of the Traditionalists’ proposed denomination. The Wesleyan Covenant Association’s offer to provide vaccines to non-US delegates to General Conference is an example of this harmful mentality. Likewise, US privilege is enshrined in the Transitional Book through its funding for bishops (para. 505). All bishops’ salaries in this proposed, global denominational would be paid for by US funds.

This is a white, US project infused throughout with the trappings of hetero-patriarchal privilege and a need for control. All of the authors of the members of the Task Force on Sexual Brokenness are white people from the United States. The drafting team for the Transitional Book consists of only white men from the United States. This is an alarming starting point for anyone who takes seriously the racist past of white Protestant America as a sinful part of our history as Methodists.

Patronage. Conservatives are protecting more than their version of theological orthodoxy. They are also conserving a system of privilege and patronage with deep neo-colonial roots. Folks considering joining the Global Methodist Church must consider where they fit within this power structure—economically, politically, and morally. Will the protection and authority of the Transitional Leadership Team serve their best interests?

The answer will likely depend on the ways in which they benefit from US, hetero-patriarchal, white privilege. There are many in the UMC—both in the United States and abroad—who want to preserve their relationships of patronage and privilege, and Global Methodist Church promises a way of doing so.

This is one of a series of video posts from the authors of Bivocational and Beyond: Educating for Thriving Multivocational Ministry (forthcoming April 2022). This book is an edited volume for church leaders and those that teach and support them. Contributors include bivocational pastors and other reflective practitioners as well as theological educators and researchers.

In Chapter 13, “Empowering the Full Body of Christ,” Kathleen Owens aims to equip the full body of Christ for ministry using the variety of gifts, or charisms, found in all members. She employs the image of the Body of Christ, as developed by Paul in the early church and invoked by Luther during the Reformation, to guide the church through times of great technological and societal shifts, such as today. The church still needs people trained for various forms of ministry; changing, argues Owens, is the need for all these skills to be found primarily in one person. She proposes a new model of theological education, empowering the full Body of Christ through discernment of gifts, education and training, and ongoing support and accountability. The transition from full-time to part-time, or bivocational, pastorates offers the church an opportunity to utilize existing educational resources to empower and equip members with specific gifts for ministry. Bivocational pastors need the partnership and support of seminaries and middle-judicatory leaders in this effort.

For resources on bivocational and multivocational ministry, see the book’s webpage.

This is the second in a series of video posts from the authors of Bivocational and Beyond: Educating for Thriving Multivocational Ministry. This book is an edited volume for church leaders and those that teach and support them. Contributors include bivocational pastors and other reflective practitioners as well as theological educators and researchers. The book is scheduled for publication in April 2022.

In Chapter 8, “Exploring Distributive Ministry,” Kena argues that bivocational congregations are well positioned to offer the gospel to people in an ever-changing environment. Congregations in the midst of change have an opportunity to re-imagine their ministry configurations as bivocational, allowing non-ordained followers of Christ to participate fully in leadership. For these churches, the shift to bivocational ministry includes a shared-ministry framework the author calls “distributive ministry.” Distributive ministry employs a team approach to leadership in which all persons in the congregation function as ministers, sharing pastoral responsibilities. This understanding of distributive ministry is derived from four schools of thought: the priesthood of all believers depicted in Scripture and Martin Luther’s writings; missional ecclesiology, as articulated by Lesslie Newbigin and others; distributive leadership theory; and the distributed pastorate model described by Geoffrey MacDonald.

For resources on bivocational and multivocational ministry, see the book’s webpage.

This is the first in a series of video posts from the authors of Bivocational and Beyond: Educating for Thriving Multivocational Ministry. This book is an edited volume for church leaders and those that teach and support them. Contributors include bivocational pastors and other reflective practitioners as well as theological educators and researchers. The book is scheduled for publication in April 2022.

Darryl W. Stephens, an ordained deacon in The United Methodist Church, is the editor of Bivocational and Beyond. For resources on bivocational and multivocational ministry, see the book’s webpage.

I first issued a call to scholars to reenvision the field of Christian ethics in April 2018. The resulting conversation proved thought-provoking and timely. The high quality of published papers from that collection are inspiring. Yet, the world looks quite different now, three and a half years later. In the face of multiple global pandemics and widespread political disruption, we need to continue the task of reenvisioning Christian ethics. Thus, I am renewing the call to Christian ethicists. I am pleased to announce that this special issue of the journal Religions is once again open for submissions.

Christian ethics is a wide, varied field. So diverse are the methods and approaches, theological perspectives and starting points, and scopes of inquiry and purposes—dare we even call it a “discipline”?—that the field is rarely considered as a whole. Christian ethics includes descriptive, critical, constructive, and applied projects on countless topics. Lending creative energy to this field of scholarly endeavor are a range of partner disciplines, including, most prominently, theology, philosophy, and sociology—each with multiple schools of thought within them. To envision the entire field of Christian ethics is a difficult task; to reenvision the entire field, perhaps impossible for one person. Thus, in this special issue on Reenvisioning Christian Ethics, we invite papers that offer a distinct perspective from their primary partner discipline for the purpose of contributing to a composite reenvisioning of the field.

The purpose of this special issue of Religions is to reenvision Christian ethics by refracting our collective vision through the prisms of diverse academic and methodological perspectives in this vast field of inquiry, study, and practice.

I did not know Morris personally, though I learned from his legacy as a scholar and church leader when studying congregational vitality. As a tribute, this post provides a glimpse of his vision of “kingdom-oriented” congregations in contrast to the reigning “church growth” paradigm of evangelism.

Morris drew attention to idea of “vital congregations” in the early 1980s by hosting a five-day consultation of 100 church leaders from Canada, the United States, and Mexico. In the resulting edited volume, he explained his views. “The congregations we develop must be kingdom-oriented . . . mean[ing] that the local church is essentially evangelistic and missionary, or it is not a church.” This description anticipated by several years the main theme and image of the widely read book, The Logic of Evangelism by the late William Abraham. Both men offered a critique of the church growth movement.

Contrary to church growth’s homogeneous principle, Morris advocated expending more resources and energy evangelizing in areas that did not yield immediately quantifiable success.

Since Jesus’ proclamation of the gospel to the poor is a concrete sign of the kingdom of God, it also becomes a powerful criterion by which we judge the validity of our congregational development. It will mean that mission analysis always gains ascendance over demographic analysis and that we concentrate larger and larger amounts of human and material resources in our cities, among the poor of the earth, and with struggling ethnic minorities.

George E. Morris, Rethinking Congregational Development, p. 32.

The measure of missional vitality for Morris was not church growth, as such. Instead of measuring faithfulness by the fruit of increased church membership, his “kingdom-oriented” congregation focused primarily on ministry to the poor.

Rest in Peace, George. The kingdom is always but coming.

The above is adapted from my article “Healing Congregations: A Corrective to the Metrics of Congregational Vitality,” Witness: The Journal of the Academy for Evangelism in Theological Education 34. September 2020.

United Methodists are facing the very real possibility that General Conference will not meet in 2022, as scheduled. David Scott explored the near-term implications of not meeting in 2021, examining denominational division in one post and budgets, boards, and bishops in another. The following discussion is becoming my annual reminder to the people of The United Methodist Church (UMC) that we do not have to wait on General Conference to declare this denomination broken. We do not need to approve a flawed “protocol” in order to move past intractable divisions. Here, I explore the question, What would happen if General Conference never met again?

For those church members worried that such a possibility would mean the end of the UMC, it is important to recognize that the UMC does not currently exist—nor has it ever existed, at least not in a legal sense. According to our own Discipline, the UMC “as a denominational whole is not an entity, nor does it possess legal capacities and attributes” (General Discipline 2016, para. 141). In other words, the general church is a fiction.

To be sure, General Conference is a real thing. It met May 10–20, 2016 in Portland, Oregon and again February 23–26, 2019 in St. Louis, Missouri. It even passed legislation and approved a general church budget to fund the work of boards, agencies, and commissions between sessions of general conference. However, General Conference ceased to exist as soon as the meeting came to a close, February 26, 2019. It will not exist until it meets again—if it ever does. The boards, agencies, and commissions mandated to carry out work on behalf of the General Conference continue to exist between sessions of General Conference. They are independently incorporated legal entities, and most have positioned themselves to serve multiple, splinter denominations in the event of a denominational schism. But that which we know as “The United Methodist Church” or “the general Church” does not exist.

What does this fiction mean? The UMC is a figment of our collective imagination, or to put it more theologically, the UMC is a covenantal agreement. The Discipline is our “book of covenant”: “It is the most current statement of how United Methodists agree to live their lives together” (General Discipline 2016, p. v). The UMC “exists” only as a covenant. The only thing animating the idea of the UMC among United Methodists is our mutual buy-in. Consider funding: apportionment formulas are precise and much debated, but actual payouts are unenforceable. Congregations and annual conferences pay what they choose to pay to the general Church.

The UMC is only as “real” as we allow it to be. When we participate faithfully and with integrity in this covenant, the denomination takes on life. Our covenantal life together can become a wondrous instrument of God’s grace. To whatever extent we fail to be in covenant, the UMC also fails to be the general Church that we so value. For many in the UMC, that covenant has already been broken; the UMC has failed to be a church for many years. Thankfully, the general church is not the essence of United Methodism.

United Methodist ecclesiology is based on connectionalism. Connectionalism, that “vital web of interactive relationships” (General Discipline 2016, para. 132), distinguishes Methodist polity from congregationalism. Connectional relationships between the general Church and every annual conference and congregation embody the functional and financial relationships of the UMC. However, we do not need a “general Church” for connectionalism. There are more immediate levels of covenant within United Methodism. This is why United Methodists claim that “The annual conference is the basic body of the Church . . .” (General Discipline 2016, para. 33).

If General Conference never met again, most of what we recognize as United Methodism would continue uninterrupted. The annual conference is the heartbeat of connectionalism. United Methodist congregations are connected to each other in an annual conference through participation in an itinerant ministry; clergy are connected through the Order of Elders and Order of Deacons; laity are connected via elected members to annual conference. In practical terms, the annual conference is where ministerial candidates are evaluated and nurtured, where clergy are commissioned and ordained, and where elders itinerate and receive pensions.

Some aspects of connectionalism would change. Political wrangling in the quadrennial arena of General Conference would cease, along with the vitriol practiced there. Annual conferences in the US, independent of the general Church, may choose different means of inculturation for Methodist polity, adapting the Discipline to their own missional needs, as conferences outside the US do currently. The process by which certain elders are elected, consecrated, and assigned as bishops would be opened to adaptation—perhaps within a pan-Methodist or wider ecumenical environment. It is also possible that some annual conferences might follow the example of the Methodist Church of Great Britain or the erstwhile Methodist Protestant Church, choosing to forgo an episcopacy. General apportionments would cease. Annual conferences would still be free to send money to general agencies, boards, and commissions to support ministry and mission around the globe. True, those payouts would be unenforceable. But is that not actually the case today?

If General Conference never met again, new relationships would be allowed to form while remaining true to the core of United Methodist ecclesiology. Old, forced relationships could be allowed to end rather than fester in acrimony within a divided denomination. Removing the denominational façade might actually help foster more genuine connection between individuals, congregations, and conferences—especially across national borders. We would have to give up the imperialistic features of our global connection and our ambition to become a “worldwide” denomination. Rather than relying on structural ties, annual conferences and congregations would have to do the hard work of relationship building. The dissolution of the UMC by abandoning General Conference would open new possibilities. Recentering our connectionalism in the annual conference could renew United Methodism in ways we have yet to imagine.

Every once in a while, I read a book that I think every pastor should read. This review is about one of them. Reclaiming Rural offers a remarkably hopeful and grounded approach to church leadership. Rejecting simplistic narratives of vitality and decline, Allen Stanton provides a deeply Wesleyan approach to evangelism, mission, and community development, resonant with my own perspective. “The church is a vital anchor institution in rural communities,” he writes (xi). Yet, the importance of this book reaches far beyond whatever we define as “rural.” Its wisdom also applies to Christian leaders in urban, suburban, and exurban areas—in all of their divergence.

Reclaiming Rural: Building Thriving Rural Congregations is an exercise in sparking our theological imaginations about the potential of rural and other small membership churches. In chapter one, Stanton expresses frustration about popular narratives depicting the rural community as either an “agrarian paradise” or a site of “rural decay.” Neither Wendell Berry nor J. D. Vance depict the “rural community” accurately. Rather, “there is no such thing as a stereotypical rural community” (16). Instead of offering a grand narrative about the virtues of rural life or its poverty, backwardness, and inevitable decline, Stanton observes that rural communities are all of that—and more. Each rural community exhibits the shortcomings and the potential of humanity, and church leaders need to be attentive to both. Effective congregational leadership is a contextual, not idealized, task: “we are tasked with serving the communities in which our churches are found” (16). For pastors, the true rural community is the one you are serving.

Stanton leverages his contextually based perspective on rural communities to engage the discourse of “congregational vitality” in chapter two. He correctly critiques common metrics of vitality, such as those utilized in The United Methodist Church, as biased against small membership churches. (Consistent with my own critique of vital congregations discourse.) This bias supports a measuring tool that stifles the imagination, causing congregations and their leaders to believe that a small membership church is inherently flawed or incapable of vital ministry. These convergent metrics, based on common denominators and imposed top-down, are accompanied by standardized techniques that do not fit the particularities of many rural congregations. Instead, Stanton observes that rural communities are divergent, “incredibly complex places.” He argues, “The ideal of vitality must be measured differently in these places, reflecting the divergence of both rural places and the culture at large” (31). To do so, he recognizes that rural church vitality is more appropriately viewed through three indicators: a clear theological identity grounded in a sense of congregational vocation; a commitment to community, informed by data and narrative; and good stewardship, attentive to all of their resources and assets.

The heart of this book is about reclaiming evangelism in contextually appropriate ways as a central practice of the church. In chapter three, Stanton builds on the work of William Abraham and Laceye Warner to offer a holistic view of evangelism. Evangelism should not be equated with church growth or social witness or reduced to “proclamation, recruitment, and marketing” (49). Rather, evangelism focuses on participating in the Kingdom of God already at hand in our communities. Stanton brings a Wesleyan theological lens to Asset Based Community Development, discussing prevenient, justifying, and sanctifying grace to interpret various aspects of the task. (For a parallel in missional theology, see my chapter in The Practice of Mission in Global Methodism.) He describes a process in which a congregation can partner with other community members and institutions to become “agents of reconciliation, hope, and transformation” (64). Thus, he sees “evangelism and community development as two facets of the same work” (64)—when the congregation understands that work in light of the Kingdom of God.

Implementing this process of evangelism in an actual congregation can be challenging. Chapter four addresses several tensions that arise when leading a church in a process of community and economic development. Should the congregation concentrate its efforts on charity or justice? Both, he argues, though acts of charity might helpfully precede justice advocacy work as the congregation develops a shared vision for its ministry. (I imply the same in Bearing Witness in the Kin-dom.) How shall the congregation engage in community development: “being with” or “doing for” others? Incarnational Kingdom work involves both kinds of relationships. And finally, what about the divide between theory and practice? Congregations need both. Pastors must engage congregants in both theological reflection and social action in order to transform communities. Grounded theologically in the Kingdom of God, each of these tensions ceases to be a barrier to ministry and instead becomes a catalyst to vitality.

Stanton provides several vignettes of evangelism as community development in chapter five. These pictures of “reclaiming rural” serve to illustrate the practice of evangelism and inspire readers to imagine their own vital ministries. In the concluding chapter, the author suggests ways that denominational structures can promote rural vitality: recruiting pastors to rural communities, reshaping the narrative of vitality, exploring new models for ministry, and creating accountability. I especially appreciate his lifting up bivocational ministry as a viable model of leadership for rural congregations. Small membership congregations and the pastors who serve them will need much more judicatory support and new narratives of vitality in order to reach their full potential.

I find Stanton’s vision for rural congregational leadership compelling. For rural congregations to thrive, they must imagine a future beyond a naïve nostalgia for an “agrarian paradise” (an image that promotes stasis) and beyond a cynical judgment of “rural decay” (an image that promotes hopelessness). Congregational leaders can help provide new narratives and new images, focusing on what God has done, is doing, and promises to do. The Kingdom of God is at hand! Attention to relationships within the particularities of divergence is the key to Stanton’s approach and the basis for hope in transforming church and society. These relationships must begin interpersonally, from the ground up; there is no shortcutting the hard work of ministry and community leadership. However, I wonder if the work of justice will necessarily emerge from such a model or whether this justice too-long-delayed will perpetuate current injustices. Nevertheless, the implications of Stanton’s community development model provide hope. If congregations have any role to play in healing the political polarization currently ripping apart the fabric of US society (the church included), church leaders in all contexts (rural and otherwise) must move beyond simplistic narratives, identify their own theological footing, and engage in community partnerships. In the words of Walter Rauschenbusch, “The Kingdom is always but coming.”

Why is The United Methodist Church in decline? And what can be done about it? These questions are the focus of a series of articles by David Scott, webmaster of UM&Global. The theme of the series, “The UMC and Institutional Decline,” is complicated. Scott presses his readers to consider the issue from many perspectives. The problem is not just a result of failed leadership, he argues, but also antiquated structures that no longer meet the needs of the institution.

Scott leverages his analysis to provide constructive ideas for moving forward. In a recent post, he suggested that the impending breakup of the UMC is an opportunity for denominational rebuilding. Boards, agencies, and the general way of doing things in United Methodism need to be overhauled. A breakup is an opportunity not only for cleaning house but also renovation.

“General Conference could create a series of commissions to work on denominational revamping,” suggested Scott. For this approach to be effective, I argue, we must learn from past and current efforts. We must examine the institutional history of United Methodist commissions and omissions.

Omissions

Not so long ago, General Conference approved a major piece of overhaul legislation. “Plan UMC,” as it was called, was celebrated wildly on Wednesday, May 2, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. “Finally,” thought many Methodist leaders, “General Conference has broken its pattern of gridlock.” Plan UMC was a bold blueprint for renovating the structures of the general church. The next day, the Daily Christian Advocate headline read, “Delegates approve a new structure.” One delegate from Susquehanna Annual Conference was quoted prominently: “The time is now. The world is waiting to see what we are going to do.” The article was accompanied by a confident picture of Bishop Janice Riggle Huie presiding over the previous day’s session.

Bishops, general agency executives, and delegates from across the connection immediately busied themselves. The full ramifications of the new restructuring plan were still being discovered. Power brokers filled the hallways and conference rooms. Who would occupy the seats of influence on the newly created “General Council for Strategy and Oversight”? General agency staff (I among them) scurried to learn what was left of program offices and mandates. Meanwhile, in other meeting rooms, the legality of the plan was under intense scrutiny (by me and others).

The bottom fell out of this botched renovation job within 48 hours. In a decision announced in the afternoon of Friday, May 4, Judicial Council ruled the entire plan unconstitutional.

We have reviewed the plan to determine whether any part, portion, or all of Plan UMC can be saved and conclude that it cannot. The broad delegation of legislative authority and the commingling of the role of oversight so inextricably permeate the Plan as to render it constitutionally unsalvageable.

UM Judicial Council Decision 1210

General Conference’s attempt to innovate outside of normal legislative processes backfired. Backroom dealing and high stakes compromises had resulted in fundamentally flawed legislation. In an aside, Judicial Council noted that “the adoption of Plan UMC by the General Conference came through a tortured course, and outside of the established legislative processes.”

There was a clear precedent for ruling Plan UMC unconstitutional. In a sad situational irony, the crux of the Council’s ruling echoed a very similar judicial decision rendered forty years earlier (Decision 364). Why did this flawed renovation plan captivate and entrance so many church leaders? And why were so many General Conference delegates so unfamiliar with denominational polity that they failed to notice this legislation’s inherent incompatibility with the UMC’s constitution? Perhaps the delegates’ desperation for renovation was fueled by a mounting sense that the denomination was veering out of anyone’s control.

Commissions

General Conference 2016 picked up where the previous legislative session had left off: amid chaos and division. Within days, the plenary ground to a halt on the issue of human sexuality. An immediate meltdown was narrowly avoided through an appeal to the Council of Bishops to establish a study commission and to call a special session of General Conference.

From an institutional renovation standpoint, however, this was not the only item of business referred. General Conference referred no less than nine major legislative initiatives to various commissions and other entities.

Issue (petition no.)	Referred to:	Working Entity
Human sexuality (“A Way Forward”)	Council of Bishops	new “Commission on the Way Forward”
Ministry for the worldwide Church (60509)	General Board of Higher Education and Ministry	new “2017-2020 Study of Ministry Commission”
Revision of Our Theological Task (60676)	Committee on Faith and Order	Committee on Faith and Order
World-wide Social Principles (60062)	General Board of Church and Society	General Board of Church and Society
General Book of Discipline (60276, 60277)	Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, in collaboration with others	Committee on Faith and Order, Study of Ministry Commission, and Connectional Table
General Church Council (60815)	Connectional Table and Council of Bishops	new “Missional Collaboration Group”
Restructuring General Agencies (former “Plan UMC Revised,” 60945-47, 60950)	Connectional Table, Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, General Council on Finance and Admin.	Connectional Table, Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, General Council on Finance and Admin.
U.S. bishops (60932)	Council of Bishops, in consultation with Inter-Jurisdictional Committee on the Episcopacy	new “Jurisdictional Study Committee”
Study of Ecclesiology Document – Wonder, Love, and Praise (60033)	Entire denomination, as well as ecumenical partners	Committee on Faith and Order

These items were referred to seven existing and four newly created entities of the UMC for the 2017–2020 quadrennium. New commissions included the Commission on the Way Forward, a Jurisdictional Study Committee, Missional Collaboration Group, and Study of Ministry Commission. The creation and work of the new commissions were overseen variously by the Council of Bishops, Connectional Table, and General Board of Higher Education and Ministry—the Inter-Jurisdictional Committee on the Episcopacy was also a consultative partner. The other five referred items were the responsibility of the following additional entities: Committee on Faith and Order, Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, General Council on Finance and Administration, and the General Board of Church and Society.

Thus, the UMC already has plenty of commissions to test Scott’s theory that “a series of commissions” will help the UMC “to work on denominational revamping.” Will these commissions succeed in renovating United Methodist denominational structures?

Renovation or Renewal?

General Conference offered little guidance as to how the diverse work of these eleven different commissions, councils, boards, and committees would be coordinated. What is the likelihood that these pieces of legislation will be developed in concert? The debacle of reports and results from the Commission on a Way Forward at the special session of General Conference in 2019 has shaken my confidence in “a series of commissions”—or even one commission—as a viable means of renovating this denomination.

For a church desiring unity, the work of revisioning and restructure requires a comprehensive plan. The Plan of Union prepared for the creation of The United Methodist Church in 1968 was years in the making, involving much more than hurried power plays scribbled in the hallways during a contentious legislative assembly. Supermajorities of delegates from both churches approved a new constitution guaranteeing rights and responsibilities. It was not a perfect structure, but it lasted for more than a generation. Scott is right in asserting that United Methodism has outlived the usefulness of that structure. But where do we go from here? Renovation or renewal?

As a church, we should repent of our previous commissions and omissions, seeking not renovation but renewal. Perhaps this denominational edifice, this structure-become-stricture, needs to be left behind in order to grow into the church God would have us become.

The Rev. Traci West is a giant among scholar-activists in religion. A professor at Drew Theological School, she has devoted her career to addressing violence against women, particularly Black women. And she has greatly informed my own work as a Christian ethicist. If you have ever heard the term “victim-survivor,” you too have been touched by her influence, This week, she is celebrated as one of 1000 influential women scholars in religion across the globe.

The purpose of this book series is to overcome systemic gender biases inhibiting the visibility of women scholars. These books address and redress the question, Why are women religious scholars absent as biographical subjects in secondary literature generally and on digital knowledge platforms specifically? Acording to the volume and series editor Colleen Hartung,

The heart of the 1000 Women in Religion Wikipedia Project, and the inspiration for the Women in Religion series, is a list of women important to the world’s religious and wisdom traditions who should be on Wikipedia but are not (Wikipedia n.d., “Wikipedia: WikiProject Women in Red/1000 Women in Religion”). The project aims to increase the representation of women on digital platforms like Wikipedia and also includes developing strategic ways of sourcing for and writing about women as a means of overcoming barriers to the publication of biographical materials about women generally.

Colleen Hartung, Challenging Bias Against Women Academics in Religion, ii

I have learned much from West’s resistant, disruptive, and defiant approach to Christian ethics. If you would like to learn more about Traci West, I invite you to read the fifteen-page professional biography written by Carolyn Bratnober, included as chapter five in this book.