1.      Restoration of 100% Value

Where 100% of value is defined as 100% of contributions plus the interest which would have been earned if ALL funds remained in the secure investment (Symetra). In some instances, this amount exceeded 1.5%, but it was never less than 1.5%.

2.      No less than 1.5% annual interest on participant accounts from June 2021 until the time of full restoration.  

 3.      Statements showing interest earned from June 2021 through the present and continuing until the closing (final distributions) of the Legacy Fund.

 4.      No legal fees to be assessed to the Legacy Fund participants. No reduction of Legacy Fund benefits to support legal and professional fees associated with litigation.

 5.      The full restoration of all funds, and satisfaction of debts associated with litigation and restoration, by the 2036 General Conference. 

Persons who have already retired will be immediately made whole with newly infused funds.  The same is to be applied to the beneficiaries of the departed, past and future. Others will be made whole, including interim earned interest, at the time of separation. All persons will be made whole regardless of their status by 2036.

 6.      The movement of Legacy Funds to a management account which will provide participant controls and higher benefits, such as the Wespath PIP.

 7.      The establishment of Fund Trustees made up of clergy and lay who are NOT members of the General Board. These persons should not have to have been general conference delegates. They should possess appropriate qualifications and serve limited terms.

 8.      Currently held Legacy Funds must not be used to pay current separation obligations above the proportional share of the exiting participant. Only newly infused funds may be used for a disproportionate division of assets.

Current retirees must not be allowed to exit with assets while remaining participants must trust the “promise” that their funds will be there when it is their time to exit the program.  This puts an unfair risk on the younger to benefit the older.  We are not the USA government. Our track record is soiled with flaws and documented reasons to make this approach negligent and unfair.

However, new funds, whether from a general budget infusion or investment returns from new funds, would be intended to benefit the older class of exiting participants disproportionately, by definition.  The funds are provided so earlier retirees will depart with 100% of the expected benefit. 

9.      Current Participants must receive 100% of the interest, dividend, or other appreciation of value less only a reasonable transaction/administrative fee which shall not exceed 2% per annum on any investment of Legacy Funds except in the case of a contractual relationship with a third-party administrator. 

10. The choice of third-party administrator, and any individual business/investment allocations, of Legacy Fund assets must be approved or ratified by a majority of the participants as determined by an independent voting/polling firm.

One of my appointments was to a church which had been damaged by fire, and the congregation was worshipping in a basement level room of a nearby Baptist Church.  Restoration plans were in progress, but after 10 months, no construction.  The insurance settlement was safe in a savings account as we modified the original plans and sought financing for necessary additional funds.

When the work finally began, and large payments were made for completed construction, the church treasurer visited my office.  He threw the savings passbook on my desk and sternly said, “You can keep this. It is worthless to me!”  There was still a few thousand dollars in the account, but it no longer showed the balance of tens of thousands of dollars.

I assured the treasurer that he needed to hold the passbook because there were funds left.  His response was that the balance meant nothing. “Before, I could show the passbook to my co-workers and friends. I was proud of the balance (almost $100k). Now it is down to practically nothing.” 

Just months into my appointment, I longed for some counselling skills which I was yet to acquire in seminary and by experience.  The Holy Spirit kept me from taking the passbook and tossing him out of my office with some old street blessings.  I surprised myself with my response, “Brother, you are important to this church and the community.  The bank book flush with cash did not make you important.  We still need you to help us through the financing and repayment process.  Take the book back and let’s go on.”

As it turned out, flesh and blood did not govern me that day. A few months later, we “really” needed that brother.  There was a snag at the bank.  The whole project was threatened and a season of embarrassment and suffering threatened the congregation.  That same brother, who wanted to give up and saw his importance in a passbook, knew one of the few people in the entire state who could fix our problem.  His relationships were more valuable than his custody of a savings account!

Of course, the brother had value as a human being.  Moreover, every penny moved out of the savings account got us closer to occupying a church building that would be renewed, practical and beautiful.  He did not see the transfer of cash into a product for ministry as part of his value and success.

This is not the time for pride in the accumulation of real estate and investments. It is a season to transfer fiscal assets into people (and our relationships) and the ministry they provide, not the hoarding of assets. It is time to boast the value we have in people by showing a willingness to bear the costs of equity. You may not see it on the balance sheet, but the fair investment in people will outperform other investments in the long-term.

A recent article on denominational departure of the United Methodist Church in the Ivory Coast did not share some important nuance.  In addition to creating a different LGBTQ+ environment, the UMC General Conference ALSO empowered regional bodies to govern themselves based on regionally generated church law. The bottom line is that the “regional bodies” could maintain a more traditional view of marriage and not enact the different LGBTQ+ positions affirmed at the General Conference.  United Methodists on the continent of Africa could easily remain within the denomination and maintain a church discipline which more closely aligns with civil laws and local cultural norms. That important distinction supports my conclusion that the matter is not sexual at all. The real issue is: how will Christians who disagree relate to one another both within and beyond denominational boundaries!

Among AMEs there is anxiety about our Discipline’s section on Same Sex Marriage. The church was doing fine before the relatively recent insertion of this section. Deleting it will NOT affirm same sex marriage, nor will it put our church’s position in conflict with ANY civil law anyplace in the world.  It WILL remove a prescribed penalty and change the duplicitous relationship between our church law and our practical moral realities.  Despite the affirmed prohibitions on same sex marriages, we are not turning away same sex families. Moreover, have we ever been serious about widespread enforcement of a moral code related to ordination, church leadership, and offering the sacraments?

The UMC ongoing struggle with sexual ethics issues is not a valid support for AMEs to ignore our effort to correct legal inconsistencies, with or without addressing our official sexual moral/ethical positions.  We can delete the statement on Same Sex Marriage (XVI, XV, B, pages 376-377) without any change to our practices which would jeopardize our relationship to African legal authorities or our brothers and sisters on the continent. Amending that one section of code is no valid justification for our African contingent to leave the denomination as it does not alter our moral position!

Aren’t we brothers and sisters? Do we have to agree on all things to maintain a relationship? What is the just cause for separation?  How will we, AMEs, live among those with whom we have moral, governance, and other differences?

I pray empty threats and colonial protectionism will not hinder holy discernment at our General Conference.  Most importantly, we cannot let sexual questions distract us from the larger question of how we will relate to those with whom we disagree.

Together let us sweetly live!