The United Methodist Church is unraveling. Years of increasingly volatile disagreement have come to a crucial inflection point. There are many United Methodist congregations and people across the world who are grappling with whether they should stay or go. Why?
I’ll admit this post has been hard for me to write. I’ve been in the United Methodist Church for my entire life. This is not some disconnected critique from afar, this is a heart-broken lament concerning a denomination I love, a denomination to which I have given years of my life. I made a profession of faith in Jesus and was baptized in a UM congregation, went to a UM campus ministry in college, went to the seminary that graduates the most UM pastors in the U.S., and have many friends within the UMC. I have served three UM congregations as a clergy person in two different annual conferences. I have worked with many wonderful United Methodist laity, clergy, district superintendents, and bishops. I have baptized people, seen people make professions of faith in Christ, buried people, performed weddings, counseled at crucial life moments, and been involved in everyday church life. I have experienced much of the grace and goodness of Jesus in the United Methodist Church, and for that, I give thanks to God and am grateful for the UMC.
But I must confess, I have been disappointed by aspects of the UMC for many years, and increasingly so lately. I want to offer my perspective as to why myself and so many others are desiring to leave the United Methodist Church. I don’t think I’m perfect, that people in my tribe are sinless, or that the newly formed Global Methodist Church that many traditional-leaning congregations are leaving the UMC to join will be a panacea for all problems. I simply wanted to offer my thoughts to try to get at the truth and foster honest conversation.
I list below nine frustrations I have with the United Methodist Church.
1. Dangerous Theological Method–One of the most important questions Christians can wrestle with is this: How does God communicate? How do we come to know who God is and what he wants? United Methodists aren’t in agreement in how we answer that question, and how you answer it has big implications.
According to ¶105 in the Book of Discipline (which is the book that contains the official beliefs, structures, and procedures of the United Methodist Church) in the “Our Theological Task” section, it reads “Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’” Some refer to these four sources of theological knowledge with the acronym STER (Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason), and it sometimes gets labeled as “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral.” To further emphasize the primacy of the Bible, here is Article IV of the Evangelical United Brethren Confession of Faith found in ¶104–
We believe the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith nor is it to be taught as essential to salvation.
Denying Inspiration–In spite of what we say about Scripture being our rule and guide for faith and practice, and about Scripture being primary among the sources of theological knowledge, some United Methodists would deny the authority and inspiration of all of Scripture, going against Paul, who claims that all Scripture is God-breathed in 2 Timothy 3:16. They would say that some parts of the Bible are simply human and not inspired at all. Methodists have not historically affirmed inerrancy language for describing the inspiration and authority of Scripture, and this is good. I personally don't believe inerrancy is intellectually tenable (not is it explicitly the way the biblical authors describe Scripture themselves), though I would affirm the inspiration of all Scripture and the primacy of Scripture. I can even get behind affirming the infallibility of Scripture to accomplish what God desires. I wrote a long blog post on this topic a couple years ago and will try not to get too bogged down here. But there is a lot of language from some leaders in the UMC about the Bible being backwards, wrong, embarrassing, and needing to be jettisoned. This is a total divorcing of the text from God, as though we must leave the text behind to truly know God, as though there is nothing to be learned about God–even if it's more indirect–in the hard and offensive passages.
Simply denying the inspiration of Scriptures because we find inconsistencies on minor details or we find some passages offensive can prove to be a dangerous enterprise. For one, who is to say that God can’t speak something about himself through those inconsistencies? Further, who defines what is offensive? I fear such an approach can enthrone our own comfort, preferences, and whims against something Jesus wants us to do. People can basically say, “I don’t care what the Bible says–it’s just a distorted, prejudiced book created by human beings with an agenda, and we need to move beyond it and do X.” Once you toss out Scripture, you can make a case for whatever you want and attach God’s name to it. This approach is at odds with Jesus, who said things like “Scripture cannot be set aside” (John 10:35), and “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God” (Matthew 22:29), and “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17), and “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law” (Luke 16:17). Jesus didn’t deprecate the Bible. He didn't say that the Old Testament of his time was a terrible collection of writings, but speaks highly of the Old Testament and seeks to live into God’s purpose for his life that the Old Testament foretold. He has a Scripture-saturated mind and taught Scripture engagingly and with authority. Don’t look to Jesus to be your cheerleader in abhorring the Bible–you won’t find anything there to support you. Such an approach is also profoundly in discontinuity with the earliest traditions of the church in how they approached Scripture.
Interpretive Method–Others affirm the primacy and inspiration of all Scripture, but have different interpretations of it on various issues. Different interpretations are bound to happen. The reason there are denominations with differing theologies all claiming the Bible to be their guide stems from varying interpretive methods. We need to evaluate the procedures in use and see who makes the most convincing arguments.
Jeremiah 8:8 gets at the importance of having a right interpretation. Just because someone quotes from the Bible doesn't mean they are interpreting it correctly or telling the truth. God speaks a critique against the people of Israel through Jeremiah, saying “How can you say ‘We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,’ when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?” Commentator Terence Fretheim writes on 8:8 that this does not center around mistranslating or miscopying the Scriptures (the law), but around interpretation:
Moreover, the identity of the “lie” is not centered on their formal or external use of the law (whatever it is). Rather, the issue is their interpretation (or commentary) of the law. Now, of course, everyone who uses the law interprets it; to deny that would be just as deceitful. The issue is the content of the interpretation, the particular “spin” they put on the law–that is the lie. Theirs is an interpretation that reinforces the message of “peace” and complacency given by the [false] prophets and hence cannot be the word of the Lord (v. 11). Their “soft” use of the law never convicts anyone, never moves people to ask, “What have I done?” (v. 6). They find ways of using the law to conceal the real problem rather than to reveal it. Like the temple, the law in and of itself cannot function as a talisman; how one interprets it is crucial (Fretheim, Jeremiah: Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary, 150).
We should approach interpretation humbly, with an acknowledgement that we could be mistaken. We should take time study and grow deeper in our knowledge of Scripture, particularly if we are called to teach (James 3:1). We should prioritize the New Testament (NT) as more authoritative than the Old Testament (OT) for how we connect with and follow God today. The NT and the OT are both inspired, but the OT doesn’t always have the same weight or serve the same interpretive function as the NT. Some OT passages have been fulfilled by Christ and the Spirit and are no longer binding (as in the sacrificial system, temple, Passover festival, death penalties, circumcision, Sabbath, etc., foreshadow what Jesus and the Spirit would do). Some we interpret as referring primarily to an end-time reality (as in genocide passages foreshadowing the judgment of Jesus at his return), or we spiritualize a passage and draw allegorical or figurative moral points from them (holy war as a metaphor for getting rid of sin in our lives, etc.). We should look at what the whole sweep of Scripture has to say about issues, not one passage considered in isolation or set against others. Knowledge of historical background and genre is helpful for getting the best understanding of passages too, and can help us determine if a command is binding in all times and places or if we would pull a principle from the command, even if its not a one-for-one literal obedience to the command. (One example is Paul’s command to greet one another with a holy kiss in Rom. 16:16–we in the West often pull the principle of greeting others warmly from that command, even if we don’t obey it literally.) We should read and interpret the Bible in community, and not make it an isolated exercise. While not everyone can do this, it also is good to have facility in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. We should consider the strongest and best arguments for different positions and perspectives within the church. We should also interpret Scripture from a posture of trust, not a posture of suspicion, trusting that God has something to say to us in a text, however difficult it might be. All of these are good principles to bring to interpretation.
I believe God in his sovereignty is able to give us the grace and resources we need to read and apply the Bible well. In essence, reading the Bible isn’t a hopeless exercise where we are inescapably trapped in our own subjectivity and can’t possibly find a message from God for us or others. That’s not to say we won’t make mistakes or have difficulties, or that we don't have biases we bring to the text. But even in the Bible itself, we see people having a positive view of reading and quoting Scripture, passionately proclaiming truths from it that were instructive for how people should follow Christ. God can give us what we need to know to interpret well if we humbly seek his light.
I believe there are many United Methodists who utilize unconvincing, problematic interpretive methods. Some try to prioritize human experience against the message of Scripture, or prioritize some findings from science or psychology over moral commands from the Bible. A few people have invented background information that doesn’t exist, or try to misapply real background information to make a passage of Scripture say something it doesn’t quite say. Some only focus on one set of passages while ignoring other relevant passages, or they put things together in a way that doesn’t seem to be sufficiently able to make sense of all the parts of Scripture.
Sound biblical interpretation matters. Paul encourages his protege Timothy to “Watch your life and your doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16). In essence, poor interpretation can lead to sinful behavior and jeopardy, while sound interpretation can lead to perseverance in salvation and grace. Further, in 2 Timothy 2:15-17, he writes “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene.” Gangrene spreads unless it is counteracted. At the time of Paul’s writing, the only way to do that was to cut it out of the body. The imagery would be that bad teaching needs to be stopped and excised from the body of Christ. Correctly handling the word of truth implies that good, faithful interpretation is possible and necessary, lest people get sick through the actions and fallout that stems from bad teaching. United Methodism has allowed gangrene to spread widely throughout its body, and we are quite sick in some places. Often that sickness roots in places where we have simply denied and dismissed Scripture, or we have interpreted it poorly. Some examples of that sickness follow below.
2. Bad or Questionable Theology–There are multiple examples we could point to that showcase bad or questionable theology in the UMC. The issue of same-sex romantic relationships and marriage gets most of the attention in the UMC and in other parts of the church world, though it is not the only issue in contention, as you will see below. It is true that some traditional churches have practiced selective accountability where pastors preach hard against same-sex relationships, but ignore affairs happening amongst people in their church, or porn addictions and usage that is widespread amongst most people, or greed, etc. It also gets personal, because some of us reading this have same-sex attraction or struggle with our gender identity, while others of us are straight but have beloved family members and friends who are LGBTQ.
I want to hold together two things: First, Jesus wants more LGBTQ people to be in the community of the church, find life in Christ, and share their gifts in the mission of the church. I want whatever church I serve to welcome LGBTQ people and invite them into genuine friendship and belonging, giving gracious space for people who don't have everything together to be loved. Second, Jesus wants more sexual purity and faithfulness from all people–straight, gay, or trans*. There is widespread sexual unfaithfulness amongst people of all sexual orientations in our culture. Jesus showed grace to people with sexual sin in their lives (like the woman at the well in John 4, and the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11, and, well, myself). God sent Philip to show his grace to an Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-40, who could have some points of connection with sexual minorities today. Yet God also calls us all to sexual faithfulness, for, as Paul said, “The body is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body” (1 Cor. 6:13b). I believe Scripture calls LGBTQ and straight people not to have sex before marriage (fornication; 1 Cor. 6:12-20) or to harbor ungodly lust (Matthew 5:27-30). I believe Scripture calls same-sex attracted people to pursue celibacy. I believe Scripture calls people struggling with gender dysphoria to identify as their biological sex (a few extremely rare intersex conditions could prove to be an exception). The United Methodist Church (on paper currently, at least) and the Global Methodist Church both permit same-sex attracted people into all levels of church leadership if they are so called by God, but on the condition of celibacy. The same is true for single straight people. I think this threads the needle properly. The debate isn’t over whether LGBTQ+ people should be welcomed in church, loved, invited into community, allowed to serve, etc. It is specifically over if romantic same-sex relationships are sinful or blessed by God, over requirements for people in positions of authoritative ministry, and over the conducting of same-sex marriages. Many different essays and books are written on these topics. For myself and several others, it is not because of a lack of exposure that we have not become affirming. It’s that we have not been convinced by affirming arguments. The one book I'd recommend for people to read is Preston Sprinkle’s People To Be Loved: Why Homosexuality Is Not Just an Issue. Sprinkle gets the tone right (he knows and has listened to LGBTQ people, he cares for them, he wants them in church and to love Jesus, and he shares perspectives from both traditional and affirming LGBTQ Christians), he gets serious about Scripture, and he is informed by and engages with many different affirming arguments and authors (i.e. James Brownson, Matthew Vines, etc.). I might have a few minor quibbles with Sprinkle, but the overall content is good. You can get an overview of his argument by watching the following two videos, but the book has some good stuff that’s not in the videos. Here’s Video #1, and here’s Video #2.
UMC Bishop Karen Oliveto said we shouldn’t make Jesus into an idol. This implies that we could take Jesus a bit too seriously, or exalt him a bit too much, or put expectations on him that he couldn’t quite shoulder. That doesn’t seem to square well with the multiple New Testament writers who claimed Jesus was God, that “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him…” (Col. 1:19). You can’t really exalt Jesus enough or take him too seriously. Oliveto also said in this same message that Jesus had to overcome his bigotries and prejudices. This flies in the face against Jesus being described as sinless (Heb. 4:15), unless we want to make the case that bigotry and prejudice aren’t sinful.
Isaac Simmons is an associate pastor at a UMC and a certified candidate for ministry in the Illinois Great Rivers Conference. Becoming a certified candidate means someone has been approved by interviewing with a District Committee on Ordained Ministry concerning her or his readiness to go forward in pursuing ordained ministry. Isaac preaches as a drag queen with the moniker Ms. Penny Cost, a play on the word Pentecost. The UM News service did a video highlighting his ministry, which you can see here (it’s interesting that UM News thought his ministry was worth highlighting). I am not opposed to LGBTQ people being in ministry leadership, but I’d expect them to follow the teachings of Scripture and the church on celibacy and on valuing and respecting male and female difference (that’s part of what Paul seemed to be getting at in his difficult-to-interpret head coverings passage in 1 Cor. 11:2-16.) Simmons also has a profanity-laced slam poem entitled “The Bible Is… Nothing” here. Sample lines include “The Bible is no more holy than Allen Ginsberg’s howls of life,” and “God is nothing but a drag queen with a microphone of biblical f***** proportions,” and that "God and the Bible must be nothing, it is all nothing, until we wield them into something.” While Simmons refers to painful moments in our nation’s history of violence against LGBTQ people and rightly grieves them, his views seem quite out of step with what Jesus and the first century church believed. This article from United Methodist Communications tries to explain away Isaac’s beliefs by saying he’s not ordained yet. Still, he has been approved unanimously by a district committee on ordained ministry. He is serving as a pastor and shepherd over people in a local United Methodist congregation. He has a video highlighting his ministry as a drag queen as noteworthy from UM News. I don’t think it’s totally forthright if you highlight his ministry as noteworthy in one breath and then downplay it by implying that he’s not ordained and fringy with the other. That's double-talk. There are others who are in the UMC who share his perspectives and commitments.
UMC bishop Joe Sprague denied Jesus’ “virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and atoning death” in the early 2000s, which you can read about here and from the Chicago Tribune here. Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:14 "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Sprague was not held accountable.
Rob Renfroe of Good News, a traditionalist advocacy group within the UMC, shares multiple stories of how several people in leadership positions in the United Methodist Church deny core doctrines about Jesus and don’t consider Jesus to be the exclusive pathway to salvation here.
I see some people claim that what United Methodists disagree on today do not involve the historic, core doctrines contained in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, and therefore are not worth dividing over. I think the above examples illustrate that some people in high positions in the UMC do in fact deny creedal doctrines. However, I think it’s naive to believe that the only important church issues were settled by the creeds in the first 4 centuries of the church. While we certainly should be informed by the creeds and let them guard in the present against errors, I can’t help but think that there have been extremely important arguments in the church where people could affirm the early Christian creeds on both sides. In the Protestant Reformation, both Catholics and the various traditions of Protestantism could affirm the earliest creeds. Does that mean Protestantism isn’t important? In the United States, white slave owners and later proponents of segregation could affirm the creeds–does that mean arguments over the injustice of slavery and the humanity, dignity, and flourishing of black people were/are not important? Could the Nazi church also affirm the creeds while massacring Jewish people? God cares deeply about things that go beyond creedal Christianity. The church must always wrestle with what it means to follow Jesus today, with the issues we are faced with today. New defining lines can come up as history progresses. I think some of these present arguments are important for the continual hammering out what it looks like to be faithful to Christ. To minimize them by retreating to the creeds is to minimize something Scripture speaks to and that Jesus cares about.
3. Kookiness at UM Seminaries–Several United Methodist seminaries teach things that are in contrast to Scripture and our denomination’s official beliefs. Claremont School of Theology has agreed to prepare religious leaders outside of Christianity, and one of Claremont’s presidents denied the importance of evangelizing non-Christians. I’m not opposed to interreligious dialogue and learning about other religions. I believe other religions contain some truths, like Paul was able to affirm in his quotes of Greco-Roman philosophers in Acts 17. But Paul evangelized the philosophers of the Areopagus and called them to repentance and faith in Christ. He didn’t insist on training them up to be the best pagan philosophers they could be as part of his mission. Training up leaders in other faiths is not the mission of the church. Jesus instead calls us to make disciples of all people for the transformation of the world, and that involves evangelism.
Methodist Theological School of Ohio now has a house of studies program for training Unitarian/Universalist leaders. Jesus in John 14:6 said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” He also said, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:13-14). Unitarian/Universalism maintains that there are many pathways to God that are all equally valid. Promoting and cultivating such a movement is out of step with Jesus’ exclusive claims.
Duke Divinity School now hosts an annual Divinity Pride. You can see the opening of a worship service in Duke’s chapel where God is called the “Great Queer One,” a drag queen, and a transman here. United Methodist Communications downplays this worship service in this article by saying that Duke Divinity allows a diverse presence of students, groups, and perspectives at its school. It’s good to try to understand other perspectives and engage, but not all perspectives are faithful. Further, what you allow in the pulpit and in worship matters. As a pastor who cares about what my flock is exposed to, there are things I would not allow into my pulpit. That such a service is permitted showcases the inability of many United Methodist seminaries to exercise theological accountability.
You can see Iliff School of Theology’s repudiation of General Conference 2019’s decision on sexuality here. Feel free to poke around on the rest of their website to get a feel for the flavor of the school and its beliefs.
You can see Drew Theological School’s values around interfaith solidarity and sexual/gender justice here.
Almost all of the 13 official UMC seminaries seem to be leaning more and more in a progressive theological direction in their leadership, save perhaps for United Theological Seminary in Ohio. You can get further indicators of the general direction of most of the seminaries here.
These instances and others are indicators that many of our seminaries and many of the leaders within United Methodist seminaries are not interested in theological accountability, nor in abiding by the stated beliefs of the UMC in their hiring, teaching, and formation of students. Part of your apportionments help fund these institutions, and they are tasked with forming future leaders for the church at large and particularly for the United Methodist Church. How are future leaders being formed in these seminaries? Are they forming leaders who are consonant with what the UMC says it believes? Or are they forming leaders to transform the UMC into something else?
4. Selective/Compromised Political Witness–The General Board of Church and Society, which is the main policy advocacy arm of the UMC, is located in Washington, D. C. The GBCS is mainly pro-choice. This article in the “Is the UMC Really…?” series refers back to the Book of Discipline statement on abortion in the Social Principles. What is written in the Book of Discipline and what people actually do can be very different things, however.
One member of the GBCS openly mocked pro-life demonstrators in 2015 by tweeting a picture of himself standing by the demonstration and holding a sign that said, “I March for Sandwiches,” with the tweet, “I was inspired by the march for life to march for what I believe in!” which you can see here. GBCS lamented the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and while saying important things about supporting mothers and families in poverty, it mentioned nothing about the sacredness of unborn life and the biblical witness concerning unborn life. The Council of Bishops mourned the overturning of Roe v. Wade as well, and while acknowledging that United Methodists hold different views, said nothing positive about people from a pro-life perspective. Both statements mention language from the Book of Discipline in the Social Principles section about abortion being justifiable in “tragic conflicts of life with life” (¶ 161.K). What’s interesting is that I’m not aware of any pro-life legislation in any state that denies life-saving abortions in the case of ectopic pregnancies and other situations where the mother’s life is in danger. To quote that part of the Discipline in defense of Roe v. Wade seems quite disingenuous. Both the GBCS and the Council of Bishops further neglect to quote these lines from ¶161: “Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. […] We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection or eugenics.” The vast majority of abortions done in the United States are done as a form of birth control. Most pro-life proponents believe it is appropriate to use the coercive power of the state to try to preserve human life, though GBCS and the CoB rightly highlight that we should also utilize the power of the state for policies that support families and thriving life. What is sad is the advocacy arm of the UMC, and apparently most of our bishops, only seem to be able to acknowledge the biblical call to support families in poverty, while totally ignoring what Scripture says about prenatal life. I invite you to reflect on the incarnation of Jesus, who the church affirms is fully God and fully human, and how he passed through all the stages of gestation (Luke 1:34-35, 42, 56). Are we going to let Jesus define what is truly human? Further, consider Exodus 21:22-25; Psalm 139:13-16; Psalm 127:3-5; Amos 1:13-15; Exodus 1:8-22; and Matthew 2:13-18.
Political advocacy is important, and the church can make a positive difference in the public square. The GBCS is not all bad–there are some good policies for which it is advocating. My fear is that the present General Board of Church and Society and most of our bishops will simply be the Democratic Party at prayer when it comes to the UMC’s political witness. Some fundamentalist/evangelical denominations seem to be the Republican Party at prayer. A biblical political witness doesn’t fit nicely and neatly with either the standard Democrat or Republican platforms. I don't get an overly partisan vibe from the Global Methodist Church's leaders, and I don't think it is pulling to the opposite extreme of just being another evangelical denomination that is largely the Republican Party at prayer.
Pay attention–do you see some of the main leaders of the UMC publicly critiquing unfaithful/debatable progressive policies?
Our UMC apportionment money pays for the advocacy of the GBCS.
5. Disobedience and Dysfunction in the UMC–There has been widespread disobedience to the Book of Discipline’s requirements around same-sex relationships and marriage, and many dysfunctional gatherings in our denomination.
Karen Oliveto, a married lesbian, was elected to be a bishop of the UMC, and is still currently serving as a bishop. Her election was ruled out of order by Judicial Council (which is like the United Methodist Supreme Court), but nobody cared or did anything about it. She is still a bishop and oversees the Mountain Sky Annual Conference in Colorado.
Retired bishop Melvin Talbert officiated a gay wedding in the Birmingham area of Alabama in 2013, against the presiding bishop Debbie Wallace Padgett’s request. Talbert went on to do another gay wedding in 2016 in Charlotte, NC. There was no accountability for Talbert, and UMC apportionment money continues to fund his retirement.
There have been increasingly contentious General Conferences surrounding the church’s ongoing debate concerning same-sex relationships. In Pittsburg in 2004, someone shattered a Communion chalice in angry protest of the church maintaining its traditional stance. In 2008 at the General Conference in Fort Worth, TX, a group of 200 people dressed in black covered the conference’s Communion table with a black shroud as a sign of mourning for the church’s stance on same-sex relationships. There have been numerous demonstrations for years coming from progressive advocates during several General Conferences, which sometimes involve the interrupting of conference proceedings and refusing to leave the floor, and one protestor in Cleveland in 2000 even threatened to jump off a balcony in defiance of the denomination’s stances on sexuality. This is just a sampling. Such tactics continued into 2012, 2016, and the special called 2019 General Conference.
At the Florida annual conference 2022, the Board of Ordained Ministry sought to pass on 2 openly gay ministry candidates for commissioning (which is a multi-year trial period before ordination that grants someone most all of the same rights as those fully ordained). These two candidates were “practicing”–either romantically partnered or seeking romantic partnership–instead of following the biblical strictures in the Book of Discipline around being celibate and un-partnered. The Board of Ordained Ministry passing them on showcases that they did not take seriously the requirements of the Discipline. This led to a confusing and painful kerfuffle where the entire class up for commissioning was denied. The passing on of "practicing" candidates happens regularly in several annual conferences.
The “Is The United Methodist Church Really…?” series put on by United Methodist Communications, while claiming to deal with misinformation, seems to spread some misinformation of its own. In this article, the case is made that the Western Jurisdiction’s decision not to “withhold or challenge ordination based on a candidate’s gender identity or sexual orientation” is not in violation of the Discipline because it says nothing about people “practicing” (i.e., being romantically partnered). Whatever language the Western Jurisdiction used, they elected a married lesbian woman to be bishop. Further, you can see reporting in this UM News article on the commissioning and ordaining of several LGBTQ clergy, some of whom were married or partnered, back in 2019. The aforementioned “Is the United Methodist Church Really…?” article is practicing active denial. It seems like there is a major marketing push by the UMC to try to preserve the institution, even if it involves misdirection and minimization.
General Conference 2020 was supposed to be a place where the Protocol of Grace and Reconciliation through Separation was to be enacted. The protocol was a hard-wrung piece of legislation that brought together several of the diverse wings of the UMC under a professional mediator, and was thought to be capable of leading to an amicable splitting of the UMC. There have been repeated delays of General Conference because of Covid, but the most recent delay seems primarily to have been political in motive. Kent Millard, a centrist and the president of United Theological Seminary, offered to share how some of our sister denominations hosted international conferences online with the Commission on General Conference in hopes that General Conference could be held in 2022. The commission never let Millard speak or share how this was accomplished. In early 2022, the commission decided to delay having General Conference again because of Covid, and instead meet in 2024. Joseph DiPaolo left the Commission on General Conference out of exasperation over the delay, and believes it was not motivated by Covid, but more likely was a stall tactic to prevent an amicable separation of the United Methodist Church and help keep the institution together. He recounts his experience here.
Most traditionalist United Methodists believe that battling over language around sexuality and theology in the Book of Discipline at General Conference has ceased to matter. It doesn’t matter what language is or is not supported, people will keep doing what they want to do. It’s not that we think the UMC is going to change the Articles of Religion or the creeds, as this article in the “Is the UMC Really…?” series implies, but that we already don’t consistently hold people accountable to them. As has been said elsewhere, United Methodist theology is hard to change on paper, easy to ignore in practice with little to no consequence. If you believe accountability to these sorts of things matter to Jesus and to the church, then you can see why so many people get frustrated.
Further, so many of us of different camps in the UMC are tired of fighting. Many pastors often shield their people from the wider dysfunction in the UMC, and are reticent to get them involved in the denomination because they will be exposed to this in-fighting. I'd love to be a part of a denomination that doesn’t constantly fight about important theological and moral issues, a denomination that has more unity and accountability around what it means to make disciples of Jesus. Which leads to my next point…
6. A Shallow View of Christian Unity–A sizable part of our denomination seeks unity in an institution over unity in truth and mission. In Jesus’ priestly prayer for oneness in John 17, he prays that his church be one, just as Jesus and the Father are one (v. 21). We have seen many cite this passage to advocate for unity and commitment to the institution of the UMC. While institutional unity certainly is part of oneness, Jesus also prayed that God would sanctify his disciples in the truth of God’s word in 17:17. Unity and oneness is about more than just preserving an institution. Unity is about oneness with Jesus, oneness in truth, in mission, in accountability. And if my Bible study on Jeremiah has shown me anything, it's that sometimes you have to say and do hard things if you want better unity with God that leads to healthy unity amongst the people. Many traditionalists are advocating for leaving the UMC in order to have better unity, not because we don’t care about unity.
In this statement, Filipino United Methodist leaders condemn attempts to try to get United Methodism to allow the changing of sexual standards of fidelity, and they explicitly call into question unity of institution over unity in truth:
We will refuse any attempts to twist long-held Biblical truths about human sexuality, or that will put cultural shifts or societal pressures first over the truth of God’s Word (Rom. 12:1-2). We will also resist moves to keep the unity of the church without holiness in truth. For when Jesus prayed to the Father that his disciples “may be one” (Jn. 17:11), he also prayed, “sanctify them by the truth” (Jn. 17:17).
Paul was content to expel the incestuous immoral brother in 1 Cor 5:1-13 instead of making appeals that everyone just keep loving each other no matter what. John didn’t try to chase down the group he labeled as antichrists who left the church in 1 John 2:18-19, whom he said “went out from us, but did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us, but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” His words describe that it is possible to be gathered together in one church body, but not be one.
Many people appeal to Wesley’s “think and let think” line from his Catholic Spirit sermon, but I don’t think Wesley (or more importantly, Jesus) would approve of how that line is being used in our current moment. Having a catholic spirit does not mean we ignore and never deal with sin and bad teaching. I would invite you to grapple with this part of the same sermon from Wesley:
For, from hence we may learn, first, that a catholic spirit is not speculative latitudinarianism. It is not an indifference to all opinions: this is the spawn of hell, not the offspring of heaven. This unsettledness of thought, this being "driven to and fro, and tossed about with every wind of doctrine,” is a great curse, not a blessing, an irreconcilable enemy, not a friend, to true catholicism. A man of a truly catholic spirit has not now his religion to seek. He is fixed as the sun in his judgement concerning the main branches of Christian doctrine. It is true, he is always ready to hear and weigh whatsoever can be offered against his principles; but as this does not show any wavering in his own mind, so neither does it occasion any. He does not halt between two opinions, nor vainly endeavour to blend them into one. Observe this, you who know not what spirit ye are of: who call yourselves men of a catholic spirit, only because you are of a muddy understanding; because your mind is all in a mist; because you have no settled, consistent principles, but are for jumbling all opinions together. Be convinced, that you have quite missed your way; you know not where you are. You think you are got into the very spirit of Christ; when, in truth, you are nearer the spirit of Antichrist. Go, first, and learn the first elements of the gospel of Christ, and then shall you learn to be of a truly catholic spirit.
No matter what General Conference 2024 decides around human sexuality language in the Book of Discipline, you will still have a sizable group within the church that will disagree with it. Even if General Conference 2024 lets clergy and churches and annual conferences do what they want surrounding sexuality and other issues, these issues and debates aren’t going away. People’s passionately held convictions aren’t going to go away. Nothing short of honestly dealing with issues and having accountability is going to restore trust and stop the bleeding. And I don’t think the UMC has the capacity to do that.
Even more, I wonder just how united the post-separation UMC will be in the future after many traditionalists leave. It seems likely that American traditionalists remaining in the UMC may be tolerated at best, as long their views are not allowed to be enforced in any systemic kind of way. How will traditionalist African United Methodists be treated? Are centrists and progressives going to get along, and how will centrists do in becoming the new conservatives in the American UMC? Will centrists stand against progressive Methodists who are not content simply to let people do their own thing concerning sexuality and marriage, but want to see practicing LGBTQ persons elevated more and more into leadership, and view traditional views on sexuality as inherently harmful? I’m not so sure that fighting will be done in the UMC even after traditionalists leave.
7. Statistics on Denominations that Become More Progressive–The mainline church in America is sometimes referred to as the “seven sisters” of mainline Protestantism, and are comprised of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Disciples of Christ, the United Church of Christ, the American Baptist Church, and the United Methodist Church. Almost every other mainline church has gone further to the left theologically and politically than the UMC, save perhaps the American Baptist Church. Such moves have not gone well for them statistically. As Chris Ritter has written (pulling from the Pew Research Center’s 2015 data on religion in the US), in 1975, around 31% of Americans identified as belonging to a mainline denomination. It’s now something more like 10-12%. The Southern Baptist Convention by itself has more Americans in it than all seven sister denominations of mainline Protestantism combined. Both evangelical and mainline churches are declining, but what’s most alarming is that mainline denominations are declining 3 times faster than evangelical ones.
There can be problems in theologically conservative churches just as much as in theologically progressive churches, but taken as a statistical whole, a more progressive approach has not proven to be effective in growing churches. Surprisingly, this holds true even in more progressive regions of America like New England and the West Coast. If anything, a more progressive approach typically sends churches and denominations further into decline. Statistically speaking, the long term health of congregations and denominations is better served by maintaining some of the distinctives that mark evangelicalism.
And while we’re on statistics, the United Methodist Church is one of the whitest, least racially diverse denominations in the United States. Surely we could do better in making disciples of people of all ethnic backgrounds as part of the universal gospel we believe?
8. Money and Property–One of the issues that is very much a factor in these conversations concerns money and property. Currently, because of what has been referred to as the “trust clause” in the United Methodist Church (found in ¶ 2501 of the Book of Discipline), all properties of local churches are not actually owned by the local churches, but are held “in trust” by the larger organization of the United Methodist Church. This means if a bishop or district superintendent wanted to shut down a church and stop a local congregation from meeting in a particular United Methodist Church property, they would have the legal authority to do so. This gives more power to clergy and the structure of United Methodism, and less power to the local church, even though it was most often the local church that contributed the resources to build a particular church property. The intent of the trust clause was to have clergy and bishops keep congregations from heresy or from rebelling against godly teaching. However, when many of the clergy and the superstructure itself become compromised, you have a real problem and power imbalance. This is the predicament many congregations find themselves in now–they don’t feel at home within United Methodism, but they technically don’t own any of the property at their local church. So they can’t leave unless they pursue disaffiliation, or give up all local church properties and start over. Some traditionalists report that they feel like they’re trapped in their own denomination.
¶2553 was established at General Conference 2019 as a way for a congregations to disaffiliate from the United Methodist Church with their property. While initially this paragraph wasn’t thought to be the primary exit pathway for most churches in the denomination, for a variety of reasons, it has now become the main pathway for those desiring to leave. ¶2553 has a sunset date of December 31, 2023, so it will not be an option at the start of 2024, so many traditional-leaning UM congregations are doing discernment and taking action now. It requires a 2/3 vote of professing members at a called and publicized meeting, the paying forward of 12 months worth of apportionments, and the paying of unfunded pension liabilities to secure the financial future for clergy retirement. If these conditions are met and the annual conference ratifies the local church’s efforts, a local congregation will be deeded the church property and will become non-denominational, and then would be free to affiliate with another denomination if so desired.
If churches disaffiliate and decide to go with the Global Methodist Church (the new denomination that many traditionalist pastors and churches are leaving the UMC to be a part of) the apportionment offerings that get sent to support the GMC will be smaller. According to ¶349 of the GMC’s Transitional Discipline, general church connectional funding is set to be no more than 1.5% of a local church’s budget, and annual conference funding is set to be no more than 5% of a local church’s budget, and it would take a 2/3 vote of the convening General Conference to change those percentages. The Kentucky Annual Conference of the UMC currently asks for 10% of overall church income to go to annual conference support and 1.5% to go to district support. So, GMC apportionment requirements will be cheaper.
You can watch this video to see an accountant walk you through some of the costs that would come to churches based on if they stay United Methodist or go Global Methodist. He gives samples of what this might look like for different sized churches, and he also forecasts out several years for these different churches. He spells out how long it might take for people to get a good return on their investment from a purely financial perspective based on they go with the GMC or stay UMC. In essence, while disaffiliation may be a difficult up-front cost for some churches, it could be considered a financial investment that would pay for itself down the road in saved apportionments.
Paying a cost to disaffiliate can be difficult. Another difficulty with disaffiliating is that there are some healthy ministries in the UMC that will be negatively affected by the decrease in general church funding (like the United Methodist Committee on Relief [UMCOR], Wesley Foundation campus ministries, and more). While some individual disaffiliating congregations may continue to support these ministries, I don’t want to pretend that these ministries won’t be hurt financially. Still, some of the benefits of disaffiliating include the local church legally owning its property, making up the disaffiliation costs in saved apportionment money in several years, and cutting loose from funding other leaders and organizations that do not represent biblical teaching and interests.
Obviously this isn’t purely a financial decision, but money and property are certainly some of the factors in play. And though no one has said this, I ponder the possibility of apportionments being raised for churches that choose to remain United Methodist to help keep some of the larger church structure afloat, even after cuts.
9. Trajectory and Identity–For this final point, I invite you to think about the future. Some of the above examples seem more removed from the culture and ethos of United Methodism in Kentucky. I don’t think Kentucky is going to have a drag queen pastor next year. However, what trajectory will the post-separation American UMC be on? Where will the post-separation Kentucky Annual Conference be in 5 years? 10 years? 20? 30? Will it keep drifting further and further away from biblical teaching and being a faithful witness of Jesus? How will it handle future issues with which the church will need to grapple with faithfulness, wisdom, and grace?
When I think of the identity of the early Methodist movement, I see it as being marked by the following adjectives:
Holy–John Wesley’s driving concern from a young age was holiness. He came to appreciate grace more and more as the true pathway to Christlikeness and holiness. This is what the Methodist movement was known for, particularly with its teaching concerning Christian Perfection, where the Holy Spirit so guides us that we no longer intentionally sin. Wesley’s strong emphasis on sanctification and the practical pathways to help people live into holiness seem virtually absent in some UMC churches today.
Evangelistic–The early Methodists were passionate about reaching the masses and leading them into a saving relationship with Christ that bears fruit. Wesley preached in fields, on his father’s tombstone, in cities, and wherever he could get an audience. Methodist circuit riding ministers did as well. Throughout history, Methodist missionaries have gone to various places throughout the earth to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. A strong evangelistic drive was part of the bedrock of early Methodism.
Biblical–Some parts of Wesley’s sermons read like one long stringing together of biblical phrases and passages. Wesley taught biblical Greek at Oxford and produced an accessible commentary on the New Testament. Wesley was known to be a man “of one book,” to be someone rooted in the Bible and who evaluated everything else through the rubric of Scripture. Early Methodism was a movement centered on Scripture, seeking to know it, live by it, and teach others to do the same.
Prophetic–Wesley opposed slavery in a time when slavery was legal and doing so was controversial to several other white English people in his culture. He opposed usury/exorbitant interest rates, called for Methodists to adopt a simple and generous lifestyle. The early Methodists founded schools to help educate the disadvantaged, they started medical dispensaries to help provide treatments for the poor, and they empowered lay people without official educational credentials into ministry and leadership positions for kingdom work. Methodism has historically connected with people from all walks of life and had a heart of mercy for the marginalized.
Sacramental–Pulling from Anglicanism and Catholicism before that, Methodism affirms that something really happens in Holy Communion and in baptism. It’s more than a symbol, it is an outward, physical sign through which God gives us an inward, spiritual grace. This is consonant with the importance attributed to Communion and baptism in the New Testament.
I think the UMC is increasingly losing its connection to holiness, evangelism, faithful biblical interpretation, and aspects of being a faithful prophetic witness to society. In essence, it is losing its identity and becoming increasingly disconnected from its roots. I don’t have much hope that the American UMC will be reformed, nor do I believe it has the tools, procedures, or the collective will to make the changes necessary to reestablish its initial identity. It has become broken and ungovernable. It needs a restart to cultivate a faithful ethos and culture. It is in order to establish a more hopeful trajectory and preserve a more biblical Wesleyan identity that many of us are pursuing disaffiliation.
Conclusion
At the end of the day, what’s primarily at issue is trust.
Consider the illustration of a business venture with multiple partners. Each partner invests their money and time to get the company off the ground. They each have hopes and dreams for the business and initially work together to accomplish goals. There is great excitement and momentum. Down the road, however, significant disagreements arise amongst the partners about the direction of the company–what they should be doing, how they should do it, and how the various partners will benefit. These tensions continue to simmer, while one set of partners moves things more and more to their vision and benefit, while continuing to depend on the support of the partners who feel like the company is less and less what they think it should be. How long will the discontented partners continue to invest in an organization that they feel is going in an unwise direction? Would not eventually those disaffected partners pull their support from the business and try something else?
Trust is something that must be nurtured and built over time. It is strengthened by people being true to their word. It is strengthened by people serving, honoring, and benefitting one another. It is strengthened when people have the same goals and move in the same direction. It is strengthened by prayer and encouragement and accountability.
It is hindered by gaslighting and double-talk, by saying one thing and doing another. It is hindered when money goes to unbiblical causes. It is hindered when leaders in positions of authority teach things contrary to biblical, creedal Christianity. It is hindered when denominational resources and seminaries openly teach and advocate for things that go against official United Methodist theology. It is hindered when the denomination can’t meaningfully address its problems or hold people accountable in consistent ways. It is hindered when we use unity language to preserve an institution more than talk about unity in truth and mission. It is hindered when we vilify and sneer at one another.
Many if not most traditionalists no longer trust the larger apparatus of the United Methodist Church, though I would wholeheartedly affirm that there are many trustworthy individuals within it. I’m not hopeful that trust in the overall denomination can be rebuilt and restored, that the UMC is “fixable.” If you can’t trust that your church will reliably support you in the mission of Jesus, maybe it’s time to seek a different church.
I welcome the correction of any errors or unfair representations in the above writing. I am not seeking to compel anyone to disaffiliate or to do something they do not sense Jesus is calling them to do. I simply wanted to offer my perspective as to why so many of us are pursuing disaffiliation, and how some of the responses I’ve seen from the church thus far tend to fall flat.
A better way is possible.
May the grace of Jesus hold us all.
