8 Things I Learned About Global Methodists From General Conference

I am exhausted. Physically, that is.
Spiritually and emotionally, I’m filled to the brim.

Eight days ago, I got back from Johannesburg, South Africa, where the 2026 General Conference of the Global Methodist Church concluded after 7 days’ (was it really only 7 days?) worth of holy worship, business, and fellowship.

This was my first General Conference to attend. I tuned into the livestreams of the 2016 General Conference of the United Methodist Church, the 2019 Special Session of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church, and the 2024 Convening Conference of the Global Methodist Church, but—as I learned—livestreams are nothing compared to being in person at a General Conference.

Just like my spiritual tank and emotional tank are filled to the brim, so is my brain. I have so many thoughts from General Conference, many of which I’m still processing. But, as I’ve written about before, writing helps me process my thoughts “out loud,” so welcome to the inside of my brain.

If you’re looking for a summary of the conference, this probably isn’t the best place to find it. There are excellent articles on the interwebs about what happened at General Conference. I’d point you to articles like:
Anything written by the Global Methodist Church during the conference
The press release after General Conference from the Global Methodist Church
The daily episodes about General Conference from the “Across the Globe” podcast
David Watson’s blog halfway through the week and at the end of the week
Tesia Mallory’s blog about the worship at General Conference
Matt Reynolds’ Firebrand article
Matt O’Reilly’s reflection on General Conference

As I thought about all that occurred at General Conference, I feel like I’m coming away with greater understanding of who Global Methodists are.

In 2022, when the Global Methodist Church was formed, we didn’t have much of a sense of who this new denomination would be. We knew some things we stood for—the authority of Scripture and it’s unerring guidance for life, accountable systems and structures of power, and a return to our Methodist roots, for example. But beyond those few key values, there wasn’t much clarity about this denomination.

I heard (and even asked) questions like: How will we champion women in leadership? Will we be a denomination that welcomes global perspectives in our decision-making? Will young people be welcomed in leadership? How will we reclaim a passion for scriptural holiness? What kind of power and authority will we give bishops and other denominational leaders?

At the Convening Conference, we learned answers to some of those questions. But new questions emerged: Will we be able to agree on new Articles of Faith? Are we still reacting from denominational hurt? Who is the next generation of leaders in this movement? And, speaking of movements, are we a movement or a structure and are those mutually exclusive?

Come 2026, it felt like we were entering a season where we would learn who we really are as a denomination. The honeymoon phase was wearing off and we were entering important—and potentially divisive—conversations that would teach us who the Global Methodist Church really is.

Which is one of the many reasons why this General Conference was so highly anticipated. Four years after formation—and with a closing window to solidify many of our core doctrinal beliefs—we were going to have the opportunity to see who we have chosen to be in covenantal relationship with. I think we did get to see just that.

And I’m grateful to report that I’m all the more glad to be a Global Methodist. Here are 8 things I learned about Global Methodists from the 2026 General Conference:

1. We know who we are.

Likely the most anticipated vote at General Conference was the vote to adopt the Articles of Faith of the Global Methodist Church. While any articulation of the core beliefs of a new denomination is significant, the passage of these articles held particular significance because of many Global Methodists’ history with such a document.

Many Global Methodists used to be part of the United Methodist Church. One of several denominations that was being formed in the mid-20th century by merging similar denominations, the UMC was formed in 1968 by merging together the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church (itself having formed as a merger between the United Brethren and the Evangelical Church in 1948). Each of these branches had their own articles of faith: the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church and the Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren.

While similar in nature, there were some doctrinal differences between the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith. During the first few years as a denomination, the United Methodist Church tried to reconcile these differences and craft their own articles of faith. Because of unreconcilable differences in beliefs, though, they couldn’t. So, instead, they adopted both articles—the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith—as their doctrinal beliefs.

One of my beloved professors in seminary, who was around during the formation of the United Methodist Church, mentioned that from the earliest days, he knew that the UMC wasn’t doctrinally united as a denomination and such cracks would eventually lead to a split. The history of the failed unified articles of faith of the United Methodist Church affirm such observations.

So with that history in mind, there was great hope and anticipation in ratifying one unified document of doctrinal distinctives as a denomination. By a vote of 370-1, the Articles of Faith of the Global Methodist Church were adopted and will become the doctrinal standards of our denomination.

There is unity in who we are and what we believe as a denomination, a refreshing and invigorating unity in Christ!

2. We aren’t scared to disagree.

A word I kept hearing throughout General Conference was the word “unity.” People were talking about how refreshing it was to be unified in doctrine and spirit. That unity was palpable during the worship, business, and fellowship of General Conference.

But just because we were unified didn’t mean that there weren’t disagreements. In fact, we disagreed about many things—things like parental leave and educational requirements and how to talk about sensitive matters like abortion and divorce. Even in some of the most important matters before us—our doctrinal distinctives contained in the Articles of Faith—there was disagreement about how we spoke of Scripture.

But nearly every single one of those disagreements was done in good faith, as brothers and sisters in Christ who were seeking to do what was best for the expression of the Church we call Global Methodism. In the extremely rare case that there were individuals who were trying to disagree out of disunity, the body calmly responded without reaction, often by quietly voting down whatever was being proposed in a spirit of divisiveness.

Disagreement doesn’t have to threaten unity. In fact, it is often through disagreement that we become more unified. When there were disagreements about how to best talk about certain sensitive and important topics, the disagreeing parties got together to discuss a way forward. It was a beautiful thing to witness and gives me hope that we are a denomination who can disagree about how to live out our shared doctrine, spirit, and love and still remain unified.

3. We want to listen and learn.

Multiple times, someone walked up to a microphone at General Conference and made a motion, amendment, or a suggestion. While retaining that unity mentioned earlier, someone else would come up and kindly say, “What I think you’re missing is…” or “That won’t work in this situation because…” and often, the original speaker would withdraw their motion, amendment, or suggestion because they got a clearer picture of reality.

It was a beautiful thing to behold.

What it taught me about Global Methodists is that we want to listen and learn from each other. Clergy and laity, rich and poor, African and Asian, small and large church membeall have something to teach us about what it means to be the body of Christ. And when one part of the body was going to be hurt by something, the whole body knew that it would hurt collectively.

I can’t remember the last time I experienced that sense of humility and mutual submission in such a large group of people. It showed me that we are a people who care more about getting it right than being right.

4. We are a global church.

Having planned worship for a few years at a seminary with people from dozens of nations and backgrounds, I know well the challenge of welcoming a variety of cultures into leadership. But while it is a challenge, it is a worthwhile challenge.

One thing I learned from planning multicultural worship services is that it’s one thing to invite people of various cultures and backgrounds to participate. It’s another thing to invite people of various cultures and backgrounds to lead.

We did not get this perfect at General Conference. The majority of delegates at General Conference were from the United States (62%) and it takes intentionality to be a majority population and yet welcome in others to not just participate, but lead. There were some times in worship and in business sessions where it was clear that Americans were leading and inviting people of other nations to participate. A worthy goal and attempt, but not the fullness of what it means to be a global church.

But often, it was clear that someone from a nation other than the United States was leading and planning. There were celebrations and worship services that I could tell were being planned by non-Americans. (I could usually tell because something made me uncomfortable and made me feel like something was out of my control—which is a good and healthy kind of uncomfortable feeling when you’re a part of the majority population.)

You could tell that, even when we weren’t getting things right and making aspects of General Conference too American-centric, our desire was to become more global. As Global Methodism outside the United States continues to explode, I can’t wait to see how we embrace our increasingly non-American brothers and sisters in leadership at future General Conferences.

Tension can be really healthy in organizations, especially when the tension is created by two worthwhile contrasting values. The next three things I learned about Global Methodists at General Conference were how we lived into those tensions.

5. We want to be contextual and connected.

One of the hallmarks of Global Methodism’s polity is that it focuses on the local church. Disciples are overwhelming formed and trained at the local church level, not the annual conference or denominational level, so it makes sense that we would focus our most and best resources to help the local church thrive.

As was identified in the Strategic Planning Framework that was presented at General Conference, the global church resources the annual conference, which in turn equips the local church, which then aligns itself with the global church.

Because of this focus on the local church, Global Methodists strive to be contextual, meaning that we strive to live out our beliefs in a way that shares the good news of Jesus in a way that best meets our congregations where they are. However, if we focus too much on contextualization, we can become disconnected from the rest of the world.

An example might help. There was significant discussion about the best way to uphold rigorous theological training and preparation for ordained ministers while also making such standards contextual because of varied access to theological education around the world. If we only focused on contextualization, we would choose to let every annual conference’s Board of Ministry decide what theological training and preparation was needed for ordained ministry in that conference. But, in doing so, we would disconnect the annual conferences, creating a “confederacy of annual conferences” (an idea Dr. David Watson so brilliantly articulated at General Conference).

Go down that slippery slope and it could lead to contextualization about the role of ordained ministry and the meaning of the sacraments and various interpretations of Scripture and stances on social issues. Pretty soon, all that would unite us would be our history and not a shared theology, doctrine, and mission.

If we went to the other extreme, though, and sought to be solely connected, we would end up in a situation where—for the sake of connectedness—we would force everyone to adopt the same methods of living out our mission, regardless of if those methods would connect with the people we minister to and with back home.

As Global Methodists, we are aware of these two competing desires and seek to find a good balance between the two.

6. We want freedom and structure.

Similar to the tension of contextual and connected, we want to live in the tension of having both freedom and structure in our denomination.

As Dr. Jessica LaGrone put it at General Conference, every complex organism on earth is made up of various cells and parts, yet are united by a common skeletal structure (forgive me, you biology/anatomy nerds, I have no idea what I’m talking about here…) that helps it participate in the tasks and mission it has on earth.

Similarly, as Global Methodists, we want to be a living organism whose structure helps each individual cell live out its mission. If our body had great skin cells but no finger bones and muscles to help us pet a soft puppy, how helpful and effective are the skin cells? Similarly, if we have churches who want to be in global missional partnerships for the sake of the gospel but we have no structure to connect them to churches around the world, how helpful and effective is our spirit for missions?

But if we focus too much on structure, we may become overly stiff in the ways of doing ministry, crushing innovative and contextual ways of spreading scriptural holiness in the communities we have been called to.

We need a structure that enables freedom and a freedom that mobilizes structure.

With most Global Methodists coming out of a denomination that provided too much structure at the cost of contextualization and mobilization, our tendency is to reduce all structure to the most minimal imaginable. I’m grateful that such tendencies were outvoted and overruled by a discerning body.

Structure is necessary. Like lighting a fire in a home, if there isn’t the structure of wood stacked intentionally in a pile and the boundaries of a fireplace, the fire will either dwindle to nothing or burn the whole place down. But with the right amount of intentional structure, a fire can draw people to the heated hearth of a movement lit by the power of the Holy Spirit.

7. We want to lead with grace and truth.

One of my laments about General Conference was how quickly we rushed through defining our social witness as a whole body. Given how little time we had to discuss such important matters (after all, discussing 471 petitions takes quite a bit of time), it was out of necessity that we had to rush through discussing how we live out our theology in the social issues of our day. I’m thankful a whole legislative committee was devoted to our social witness to present recommendations to the whole body.

However, in the little time we did spend discussing such sensitive issues, there was a willingness to live in the tension of truth and grace, of clarity and conviction about what we see as God’s best in our lives and for the world and compassion for those who have been and are being affected by the brokenness of the world.

In hearing discussions about topics like marriage, divorce, sexuality, and abortion, there was a desire to speak about what we stand for above and beyond what we stand against. This is how I hope we all approach such real and personal issues: choosing to lead with what we stand for. Despite this, there wasn’t a desire to stay silent on what we’re against, but only to do so when necessary and when done out of love and compassion.

8. We are learning to trust.

Finally, one of the beautiful things to witness during General Conference was our willingness to learn to trust each other.

As I wrote in my Facebook post with initial reactions from General Conference, “The currency with which movements trade is trust.” Many Global Methodists came from a denomination where denomination-wide trust eroded away. Now that that season is behind us, it has and is taking intentional work to learn how to trust each other to listen well and welcome others’ opinions and leadership.

One thing that surprised me was how much was passed through what’s known as a “consent agenda.” Simply put, a consent agenda was a group of petitions that were grouped together to be decided by one vote based on the recommendation of the consensus from a legislative committee. Such a vote requires a lot of trust—we trust that the people in the legislative committee care about what’s best for the movement and we trust their judgment on such matters.

Just like many former United Methodists learned that trust is something that can erode away, trust is also something that can be built. Building trust is a worthwhile effort.

One of the primary ways we do this is through relationship. As a person of wisdom once said to me when I lamented eroded trust to them: “Relational hurts need relational healing.” Only by being in relationship can we continue to build trust.

Over the next 6 years—as we live out what was decided at General Conference—may we seek relationships beyond ourselves and our local churches and communities to see the beauty of holiness that God has spread abroad throughout all the earth.

Thanks for reading! If you’re new to my blog, welcome. I hope you’ll stick around. Here’s how you can get my newest blogs sent straight to your inbox:

I hope you’ll check out my Facebook page and learn more about me here. If you’d like to read any of my recent blog posts, check them out below: