In recent rulings the Judicial Council has affirmed connectionalism in the strongest terms, calling it “a distinctive attribute of Methodism,” and “a bedrock principle of United Methodist constitutional polity.” It is “the opposite of congregationalism.” Connectionalism is “the universal thread out of which the temporal and spiritual fabric of the Church is providentially woven, creating the relational ligaments that wonderfully link and sustain the diverse parts of the community of all true believers under the Lordship of Christ.”
In hearing this assessment at a recent Conference, I asked why ¶2553 was ruled constitutional when connectionalism and the trust clause have been so beautifully upheld in other decisions. The answer has to do with the required vote of the Annual Conference. The Annual Conference can set the criteria and allow congregations to step out of the connection. The Annual Conference, however, cannot separate from the General Church as a whole, per Decision 1444. As a body, the Annual Conference represents and affirms the connection.
This explains a lot. It explains why the Annual Conference passed “principles” rather than “rules” for how we hoped the process would be followed. It explains why cases get passed on to the Annual Conference even when some believe that the process was not followed, or deadlines were not met. As we have interpreted and practiced this process, the Annual Conference is the decision-maker.
In this coming special session, for example, there are questions about several congregations that started the process after the recommended deadline based on the “minimum three-month discernment period” and the principle that “all materials…must be submitted to the Conference Trustees a minimum of three weeks before the Annual Conference session…” In a confusing statement, we read that a minimum three-month process begins with the initial contact from a congregation, but this is followed by the expectation “that the congregational meetings will be conducted over a full three-month period, since discerning a vision for God’s purpose requires both time and prayer.” While questions can be asked about how our principles are followed, we can assume that the Annual Conference will decide how we want to deal with timeline issues. (And for an update, the website will distinguish those received before and after the 3 week deadline).
The responsibility is great! Motivation to vote comes from multiple considerations – concerns about the winner-take-all outcome, whether we help or harm our future witness, avoiding future conflict, honoring majority votes, and commitments to connectionalism, to name a few.
Members of the Annual Conference must decide! Next Sunday will be our last vote using ¶2553. After this is over, may United Methodists come together and discern how to move forward as a connected witness, where all relational ligaments are woven together to create a life-giving witness to the love of Christ. Isn’t that a beautiful thought?
Connected In Christ 
Beautifully written, Michael. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person