by Steve | Jul 1, 1982 | Archive - 1982
Archive: Why I Left the UM Church
by William David Epps, Minister of Outreach, First Assembly of God and Campus Minister, Mesa College, Grand Junction, Colorado
Without question my decision to leave the United Methodist ministry was the most important decision I have ever made in my professional career … and by far the most difficult. My early childhood memories include a Sunday school class at the little neighborhood Methodist church (not United back then) where a portly, white-haired lady would delight in telling various Bible stories to the enraptured children gathered around her feet.
My youth and teen years were full of hayrides, church softball teams, passing notes and giggling in church, often boring UMYF programs, and tremendously uplifting spiritual retreats in the area mountains. All these were years of satisfaction and contentment as I pondered just who God really was and the significance He had for me. The teen years ended in the madness and nightmare of the Vietnam era. The aloofness in which I had held God did not suffice for this young frightened Marine who was learning the ways of adulthood–how to slash with a bayonet, to destroy with an M-16, to learn the ways of death.
One lonely humid night, I turned to a passage in a tract given to me by a Navy chaplain and found the words of Isaiah 41:10. Earlier in the day, I had cried to God for some assurance of His presence, of His reality. Now the words leaped from the page, “Fear thou not, for I am with thee. Be not dismayed, for I am thy God. I will strengthen thee, yea, I will help thee, yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.” There, away from home, with no church, no pew, no pulpit, no preacher, a young United Methodist became a Christian. My attitude was new, my heart light. Deep within me was the certain knowledge that I must share this Jesus, whom I now knew, with others who would listen.
Time passed and my service in the Marine Corps came to a long anticipated conclusion. University studies and work on my license to preach began. School years were hard but happy. I served in local churches working with children and young people. The day came when I was assigned to pastor a small rural church whose people were delightful. I endeavored to teach them what little I knew about the ways of God and, in turn, they responded in love and a great abundance of patience. They grew; I grew. Then I was transferred.
All went well outwardly for the next couple of years, but the more time passed, the more I read, the more I studied and learned, the more disturbed and unsettled I became. What was it that was beginning to create turmoil in my spirit? What was it that would eventually bring me to the determination that I must leave the United Methodist pulpit, the pulpit that I had dreamed of occupying for so many years?
— Perhaps it was when I realized that all church members aren’t Christians and don’t intend to be.
— Perhaps it was when I noticed that the amount of apportionments paid appeared to have a greater priority than the winning of new converts.
— Perhaps it was when I detected that pluralism meant that liberals advance and that evangelicals are often farmed out to charges where their influence would be minimal.
— Perhaps it was when I saw that ministers who come to ministers’ meetings wear masks concealing their real selves, that they segregate themselves according to the seminary attended or the types of churches pastored, that even ministers are not above petty gossip and undercutting other ministers who appear to have more success than themselves.
— Perhaps it was when I first heard that our UM Church, my church, was considering the ordination of homosexuals in vivid violation of God’s Word.
— Perhaps it was when I discovered that even a great many pastors did not believe in the fundamentals of Scriptural teachings.
— Perhaps it was when I read reports that my denomination seemed to be siding with Marxist-terrorists in Africa.
— Perhaps it was when I found that many ministers, including those of various minorities, seemed to be more interested in proclaiming their own particular rights than proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ.
Or perhaps much of the problem was local, rather than denominational, even in my own parish and family. Indeed, several incidents that occurred had a definite bearing on my decision to vacate the pulpit. Like the time I came home to find my wife in tears because a trusted church member with whom my wife had shared deep, confidential information had broken trust and informed others of the concerns my wife had revealed.
Then there was the time I had requested an increase in travel allotment, after gas prices had doubled, only to be told, “Preacher, you’re just going to have to learn to manage your checkbook better.” Or the time I had spent 72 hours at the hospital without sleep or food at the bedside of a critically injured child who was not expected to live only to return to my parish to learn that a trusted board member had been visiting members of the congregation and complaining that I, as pastor, “never visited” the sick and shut-ins. The child, by the way, lived and gave his heart to Christ in the hospital.
Or perhaps it was when I saw young Jesus people, new converts, and charismatics, who once were full of life and vigor lose their enthusiasm as church leaders discouraged their interaction in the services. Though a very hard thing for me to do, I assisted these new converts in finding fellowship elsewhere. Perhaps it was when I discovered that at that time, in my area, to support Good News, conservative seminaries, or the charismatic renewal was tantamount to cultism, in the views of many, both ministers and laity.
Perhaps it was having few or no close friends, no sense of intimacy. Or maybe it was none of these factors. In reality, perhaps the problems were within me: my inexperience, my frustrations, my lack of knowledge, my lack of understanding and patience. Or maybe it was a combination of all these factors.
Why did I not share my questions and confusions with others? Fear, I suppose. I had already learned through a series of broken confidences that it is not wise for a pastor to share too much of his personal life with his congregation. My district superintendent sensed something was wrong and attempted to bring my feelings out in the open, but I always knew that this man who was asking me to bare my soul was the same man who would chart my life with his influence in pastoral appointments. And, after all, would it really solve anything (at least that was my attitude). Other ministers? The two ministers I spoke with had similar feelings and confusions and one of those later vacated his own pulpit. (I didn’t confer with my liberal brethren.)
For weeks I prayed and wept and sought answers: “But Lord, this is the church of my childhood. I have worked, studied, and suffered to be able to stand in this pulpit!”
Ultimately, the decision was mine. In late January of 1977, on a dark and bitterly cold night, I picked up the telephone and dialed my district superintendent and resigned. After the deed was done, I hung up the telephone, put on my coat and walked the mile to my church. I wandered through the Sunday school rooms, shot basketball in the parking area, strolled through the old cemetery, and stood for a long time looking at the stars. Re-entering the building, I walked down the aisle, looking at each pew, remembering each one who would sit there come Sunday morning. I picked a few tunes on the piano and then stood behind the pulpit for the last time. Finally, in the darkened sanctuary, I fell at the altar and cried all night long.
Many would not understand and I’m not certain I fully understood either. Some ministers would see me as a traitor and some members would suspect that I had rebelled against God. But others would stand by, not really caring about the rightness or wrongness, but would concern themselves with my spiritual welfare and the welfare of my family.
As I reflect upon all this five years later, I truly believe that, for me, to have remained would have meant spiritual disaster. Others have fared quite well. I did—and do—believe that the UM Church, the church of my childhood, is in serious trouble. Many social, political, and Scriptural questions have yet to be resolved. Membership has been eroding at a dramatic rate. But there is hope. I see hope in the United Methodist grassroots evangelical groups, in the Good News influence, in the charismatic renewal. But most of all there is hope in the God who spoke to man, including the young Marine years earlier, and promised to strengthen, to uphold, and to never, never give up. In Him lies any and all hope we may have for the questions, for the confusion, and for the future of Methodism, of Man, and of the World.
by Steve | Oct 20, 2023 | In the News, Perspective / News
Why “Mainstream UMC” Is Wrong About Exit Paths –
By Thomas Lambrecht –
In an article riddled with factual errors and distortions, Mainstream UMC (the “centrist” caucus in the UM Church) called for “an end to disaffiliations through paragraph 2553.” They maintain that enough local churches have disaffiliated, and it is time to close the door on any more disaffiliations after the end of 2023.
They are wrong. There will continue to be a need for disaffiliation following the anticipated significant changes to be enacted by the 2024 General Conference in Charlotte.
Addressing Mainstream’s Reasoning
The article gives four main reasons for calling a halt to disaffiliations, all of which are specious.
-
- “There has been enough time.” The Mainstream article mentions the almost five years since Par. 2553 was adopted and states, “Any church that has not been aware of what is going on has been asleep at the wheel.”
Due to the Covid pandemic, churches have primarily been disaffiliating during the past two years. It is true that some churches have been “asleep at the wheel.” In other cases, pastors and district superintendents have prevented local churches from discussing disaffiliation or in some cases even knowing about their options.
However, lack of time is not the reason disaffiliation pathways are still needed. Simply extending the time on the current Par. 2553 will not be enough to correct the injustices plaguing this process. The reason some churches have not disaffiliated in the U.S. is the extra costs imposed by some annual conferences (see more below). The reason churches outside the U.S. have not been able to disaffiliate is because their bishops have prohibited them from using Par. 2553 at all! There may have been enough time for many churches in the U.S. to disaffiliate, but that does not mean there is no further need for a disaffiliation pathway.
-
- “Disinformation is rampant.” The Mainstream article alleges that “far-right advocacy groups have trumped up all kinds of nonsense to get people to leave. … A church may … be persuaded [to disaffiliate] by the continuing flow of false information. Extending the season for their disinformation is unacceptable.”
It is fascinating how groups that have represented the mainstream view of the UM Church from 1968 until 2019 are suddenly being called “far-right.” That is actually an indication of how far left the center of gravity of the U.S. church has moved. Trite name-calling solves nothing. That tells us that the “big tent” of United Methodism may not be big enough to include principled traditionalists, at least in the eyes of Mainstream UMC.
It is also amazing how often traditionalist renewal groups are accused of disseminating “disinformation,” without any specific examples to point to. The leaders of Good News, the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA), and UM Action have yet to be confronted with any specific instance where we have been factually incorrect. We espouse opinions and draw conclusions with which centrists and progressives disagree, but that is hardly “disinformation.” What is more, we generally attempt to back up our opinions and conclusions with reasons why we think the way we do. The Mainstream article just makes bald assertions without any evidence and expects their conclusions to be accepted.
Renewal ministries will continue to share information that is relevant for congregations to consider as they discern whether they truly fit within a more progressive UM Church, even though we are sometimes surprisingly hindered from doing so by denominational leaders. In every instance, representatives of the denomination have the unhindered ability to refute our perspective and present the case for remaining United Methodist. That conversation is an appropriate one to have, and allowing equal opportunities to present perspectives aids a local church in making an informed decision. Censoring the traditionalist perspective by calling it “disinformation” does not serve local churches well.
-
- “Other paths for departure are available.” The article maintains that “churches have, on occasion, left the UMC before Par. 2553 was available. … They still can.”
It is true that local churches have occasionally left the denomination before Par. 2553 was adopted. If a church was small and did not have valuable property, the conference would agree to let them go. This might happen once in ten years in an annual conference. I am aware of only a couple of large churches that were able to leave in this way. Sometimes, they were able to leave because the conference could not afford to assume the large debt on these churches’ property. However, now that dozens of churches want to leave, including churches having valuable property that could be sold to support the annual conference’s ministry, very few annual conferences are willing to let those churches go without a prescribed disaffiliation pathway.
Only two annual conferences have announced a specific policy for disaffiliation that will apply after December 31, 2023. And these policies depend upon the consent of the bishop (who in some cases will be new by the end of 2024) and the agreement of the annual conference. There is no certainty that even these annual conferences would allow large numbers of churches – or congregations that hold valuable property – to disaffiliate. A prescribed pathway in the Book of Discipline is the only sure thing, and even then, some UM leaders have found ways to create loopholes or ignore such provisions when they want to.
-
- “Fighting is unhealthy.” The article states, “just the act of taking the vote has divided churches across the United States. … We need to move from a conflict-centered church to a mission-centered church. … Extending the fight does not extend the Kingdom of God.”
There is no question that conflict in a church poses a challenge. If conflict is handled well, it can help a church’s ministry move forward. Handled poorly, conflict can devastate a congregation.
The same is true for a denomination. As the 2019 General Conference demonstrated, conflict in our denomination has reached destructive levels. If fighting were so unhealthy, centrists and progressives would have stopped fostering conflict over the church’s traditional sexuality standards that were affirmed at every General Conference since 1972. Instead, they kept promoting a fundamental change in the church’s beliefs and teachings around marriage and human sexuality, leading to the impasse following the 2019 General Conference.
In the aftermath, many church leaders, including Mainstream UMC, realized that, to resolve the denominational conflict, it would be necessary to allow conflict at the local level, as churches discerned whether their future lies within or outside the UM Church. That realization led those leaders, including Mainstream UMC, to endorse the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. That endorsement was intended to allow local churches to discern their future and potentially disaffiliate under more favorable terms than those contained in Par. 2553. Unfortunately, Mainstream UMC and other centrist and progressive leaders withdrew their endorsement of the Protocol, leading to a chaotic disaffiliation process that fostered far more conflict than was envisioned under the Protocol. If fighting were so unhealthy, centrist and progressive leaders would have kept their word and continued to promote the Protocol as the most amicable disaffiliation proposal available.
But now, having once endorsed a disaffiliation pathway that was more standardized and less costly, Mainstream UMC wants to end disaffiliations entirely. It is disingenuous for Mainstream UMC to claim to want to end the fighting when they have been part of promoting conflict in the church and abandoned the best opportunity available to minimize that conflict.
If fighting is unhealthy, so is coercing local churches to remain in a denomination that is changing its beliefs in a way contrary to the wishes of that local congregation. A forced covenant is no real covenant at all. That is what many churches find themselves in now, either because they have been denied the ability to disaffiliate under Par. 2553 or because their annual conference has imposed costs for disaffiliation that are impossible to pay.
Why is a disaffiliation pathway needed?
Simply put, a new disaffiliation pathway is needed to correct the injustice that has been done to some churches. Bishops have denied churches outside the U.S. the possibility of using Par. 2553 to disaffiliate. The few churches that have successfully disaffiliated outside the U.S. have mostly done so outside the boundaries of the Discipline. Most churches outside the U.S. have no wish to defy the Discipline to disaffiliate. In simple fairness, the UM Church should provide United Methodists outside the U.S. the same opportunity to discern their future and disaffiliate as that given to U.S. United Methodists.
It is readily apparent from the Mainstream article that some U.S. centrist leaders do not think it is important to treat non-U.S. members fairly. In fact, the article contains no mention of the situation outside the U.S. Myopically, it treats the U.S. situation as reflective of the global situation, or else does not think it is important to consider the needs of over half the members of the denomination residing outside the U.S.
The other injustice needing to be corrected is how some congregations have been treated by their annual conferences. Some annual conferences have done everything possible to prevent any of their congregations from disaffiliating. Some had long, tortuous processes that discouraged churches from even considering applying to disaffiliate. Others forbid churches from hosting speakers to share a pro-disaffiliation perspective with the congregation or worked through pastors to prevent congregations from even considering the possibility. Most egregiously, some annual conferences have imposed draconian costs of 20 to 50 percent of the church’s property value, as well as other fees and expenses that artificially inflated the cost of disaffiliation to the point of impossibility. One church in California would have to pay over $60,000 per member to disaffiliate.
Furthermore, some bishops and district superintendents advocated for churches to wait to consider disaffiliation until after the 2024 General Conference. Their argument is that nothing has changed, that the UM Discipline still reflects the official position of the church. And that no one can predict what the General Conference may or may not do in 2024. The implied promise is that after the 2024 General Conference there will be a disaffiliation pathway for these churches to use. If the General Conference does not pass a disaffiliation pathway, that promise will be broken.
To rectify these injustices, members of the Africa Initiative (an organization speaking for and equipping African church leaders) have submitted a new Par. 2553 and another new paragraph allowing non-U.S. annual conferences to disaffiliate. Good News and our sister organizations have agreed to support these proposals as the best option to provide fairness for churches still wanting to consider disaffiliation, whether inside or outside the U.S.
History will look back on this time to see how we as Methodist Christians have treated one another. Let both history and our surrounding world see that Christians can be gracious to one another, even in conflict!
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Photo courtesy of Unsplash.
by Steve | Jan 6, 2022 | January/February 2022, Magazine Articles
Photo: Shutterstock
By JJ Mannschreck –
Speaking as a young clergy with a (God willing) long career in front of me, I think it’s important for me to explain why some of us are considering going with the Global Methodist Church (GMC).
1. The Definition of Progressive. There’s a lot of noise being made in the current church conversation about big tents and long tables. Progressive voices and institutionalists are talking about how welcoming they will be for traditionalist voices. “You don’t have to leave” they say, “we will make room for and respect all theologies.” And to be honest, I want to believe them. But if the issue of LGBTQ inclusion is a justice issue – which I’ve heard many, many times – then, at best, what we are going to see is a temporary tolerance.
The definition of progressive is that they understand their ideology as progress. Assimilation is built into their identity. One can assume that they can and will be very kind for a season – but eventually the call of justice will not be content to permit “oppressive theologies” in the room. There will probably be a few years in the Post Separation UM Church (PSUMC) where it will be safe and even comfortable for traditionalist clergy to do ministry. But it will probably get progressively worse for them as the years go by. For those nearing retirement, it might even be the easier choice to stay. But I am not near retirement. I am a young traditionalist clergy. I have no desire to be part of a tradition that will resent me just a little bit more every year for my entire career.
2. United By Mission Alone. It is time for all Methodist traditions (both PSUMC and GMC) to eliminate the Trust Clause. The Trust Clause coerces unity that isn’t really there. The Global Methodist Church has made it clear that autonomy in the local church will be the name of the game, whereas the PSUMC has no intention of getting rid of its hold over congregations. Without a legally binding, practical, and financial threat to keep unity in the ranks, the Global Methodist Church will rely on missional alignment. Rather than being yoked together by rule of law, we will be able to walk next to one another – and work together freely.
3. The Call System (and Guaranteed Appointments). Along with the trust clause, the itinerant system should be eliminated. The current method of appointment for pastors does have its conveniences – but the disadvantages significantly outweigh the advantages. It is a system that can very easily, even if accidentally, breed deep abuse and scandal. Beyond potential abuses, it enables toxic churches and ineffective clergy to point fingers at one another for decades without accountability. I’ve seen this in my own conference in countless examples. The Global Methodist Church is shifting only slightly, to a partial call system. This will be challenging at first. Churches will have a steep learning curve on interviewing pastors. Toxic churches will shrivel and ineffective pastors will struggle to find good churches, but all of those things will ultimately lead to a healthier denomination down the line.
4. Becoming a Minority. I am a very privileged, young heterosexual white man. While I may not come from a fabulously wealthy family and I never had a pony growing up, the reality is that I grew up in extremely comfortable conditions. I believe there is a racial and cultural realignment coming for the church – and I am here for it. I am eager to be a part of a church that is multiracial and where leadership is more equitably shared between Africans, Filipinos, and Caucasians from the United States, Europe, and Russia.
Our African brothers and sisters have lived with a system of inequity for decades. It saddens me to see progressive voices making a lot of noise about regionalization at the exact historical moment when multiracial voices are finding prominence in the power dynamics. Rhetorically, institutionalists talk a lot about diversity – they want Africans in the room – it just seems that they don’t want to have to listen to them. Regionalization is not justice. Make no mistake, it is an injustice issue, and nothing else. The Global Methodist Church, particularly the white conservatives in America, will have a lot to learn in a short amount of time. There is racism buried beneath the surface of some of our congregations, and we will have to deal with that if we are to flourish.
5. Governance Structure – the local Church. The core of my desire for movement to the Global Methodist Church lies in the nitty gritty of church organization. I don’t believe institutionalists or even progressives are bad people. I will miss many of my colleagues, and I wish them blessings in the future from the bottom of my heart. But when I look at the two structures, one system is simply better. For a long time the UM Church has paid lip service to the fact that the front lines of ministry are in the local church. And yet, in my experience and in what I have seen around the country, this is not a practical reality.
In my conference, pastors are actively running away from local church ministry, often seeking out the coveted conference level staffing positions. Despite the financial difficulties and combining of structures, the conference level staff continues to grow. In recent months, they have done a good job of re-orienting back toward the local church, particularly since COVID – but it is still an extremely top heavy structure. There’s a whole lot of apportionment money going to support these massive staffs and the resources they provide (which a majority of churches do not make use of). This is only more pronounced when we consider the massive dollar amounts attached to the work at the General Church level as well.
The Global Methodist Church is offering a far more streamlined organization. In dollars and cents, it will probably cost my church half what it currently does to be a part of that structure. On a practical level, we will send less money up to the denomination, and more money will be left for the local church to do ministry in our community. In rough estimation we expect to move from 14 percent of our budget going up to support the conference down to 7 percent. District Superintendents (or whatever they will be called) will not be seen as a promotional escape from local church ministry, but rather an extra responsibility – possibly on top of local church ministry – taken up as an honor. I have seen some say that the GMC’s Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline (which is significantly shorter than the current UMC BOD) is too short. Critics claim that clearly they didn’t think hard enough if they wrote such a streamlined structure. But I look at the bloated structures of the current UM Church and I believe that a simpler way is possible (and preferable).
What is not on my list of five points? The conversation about LGBTQ inclusion does not even arise (except perhaps tangentially in the first reason). I do not want to move to the Global Methodist Church because of a disagreement over homosexuality. Despite what progressives have been screaming for years, I don’t “hate” gay people. To be honest, I can easily make this decision without even considering that part of the discussion. I would make my way to the GMC on their call system alone, or their governing structures, or their removal of the trust clause. All of these are practical, straightforward reasons that the Global Methodist Church will be a stronger church in the long run.
I know that LGBTQ+ inclusion is the flashy headline. Mainstream media, if they notice this split at all, will talk about how the church is dividing over homosexuality. They have never had much interest in nuance, or really any differences that don’t grab people’s attention. I don’t expect a fair hearing in the public square. Inclusion may have been the lightning bolt that struck the church and lit the roof on fire – but after the flames died down, they revealed a rotting structure set on a leaky foundation. It’s time to build a new house.
For what it is worth, I will be entering through the doorway into the Global Methodist Church, just as soon as they unlock the door.
JJ Mannschreck is the pastor of Flushing United Methodist Church in Michigan.
by Steve | Aug 13, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Illustration by Shutterstock.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
Denominations are not in vogue right now in American culture. For the past 20 years, the non-denominational church movement has grown across the country until its congregations make up a significant portion of the Body of Christ in the U.S. and in Africa, as well. This reflects the tendency toward “do-it-yourself” (DIY) religion. Rather than submit to a prescribed set of beliefs, many pick and choose from various religious traditions to fashion their own personal religion. This smorgasbord approach to religion is highly individualized and made possible by the acceptance of the idea that there is no such thing as Truth, only an individual’s personal truths. It is amazing to hear some of the bizarre, unorthodox beliefs espoused by some who claim a Christian identity, even though (and perhaps because) they rarely or never attend a Christian church.
The individualization of religious belief is reflected in the non-denominational church movement, as well. Each church creates its own doctrinal statement and members join if they are in agreement (or at least can live with the statement). Church structure varies widely from one church to another, but most congregations have some kind of church board that may be either elected or appointed. Pastors are called or hired by the congregation, and each congregation is pretty much an island unto itself.
Some United Methodist congregations are dipping their toes in the water of non-denominationalism through the disaffiliation process enacted by the 2019 General Conference. The 100 or so churches in the U.S. that have separated under this provision have often become independent congregations, rather than affiliating with another denomination. Many of those churches may hope to align with the proposed new Global Methodist Church when it is formed. Others may find non-denominationalism attractive.
Becoming independent can be exhilarating. No one telling you what to do. No one demanding that you pay for this or that. No one telling you whom you must have as a pastor. You are free to structure your church as you like. You can decide as a congregation whether or not to support particular missions. It’s the same feeling one gets the first time one leaves home to live on one’s own.
Pretty soon, however, reality sets in. The responsibility of making all the decisions for a congregation without any guidance or support can become overwhelming. This is particularly true for smaller and mid-sized congregations.
That is why it is good to remember the reasons for being part of a larger denominational group.
Security in Doctrine
We are not saved from our sins and transformed into the image of Jesus by the correctness of our beliefs. But what we believe certainly influences our ability to be saved and informs the kind of life we live as a Christian. This is true at both the individual and the congregational level.
If we believe that everyone is going to heaven, then it is not important for us to share the good news of Jesus Christ or for individuals to surrender their lives to the lordship of Christ. If we believe the Bible is fallible, then it is all right for us to compromise the teachings of Scripture in order to be more culturally acceptable. If we believe the Bible and the Church historically are wrong about certain activities being contrary to God’s will for us, then we will be comfortable ignoring those biblical standards in the way we live our lives.
That is why it is so important for us to get our doctrinal beliefs right. Incorrect beliefs can lead us away from God and cause us to live lives that are not in keeping with God’s desire for us.
The Christian faith is not up for negotiation, either by individual persons or by individual congregations. The virtue of a denomination is that it has a set of beliefs that are consistent with historic Christian doctrine and vetted by a larger body of people. This helps keep individual Christians and individual congregations from going off the rails in their beliefs and “shipwrecking their faith.” Doctrinal accountability is essential for the Christian life.
That accountability is especially true when our theological perspective is a minority view within the overall Body of Christ in the U.S. Among evangelical circles, the predominant theology is Calvinist, whereas Methodists take a Wesleyan/Arminian perspective on theology. A colleague who is a professor at Asbury Seminary has often remarked that Wesleyan/Methodist churches that go independent tend to become Calvinist in theology within a generation of their departure from a Wesleyan denomination. Doctrinal accountability can keep our churches faithful to a doctrinal perspective that is valuable and needed in the Body of Christ today.
In Africa, many freelance independent, non-denominational churches preach a prosperity Gospel. For churches there, being part of an established Wesleyan denomination can help guard against the adoption of heretical doctrines that are harmful to their members in the end.
Accountability
That leads us to the next value of denominations: a system of accountability for both doctrine and behavior. In order to be effective, accountability has to be broader than what an individual congregation or its leaders can provide. Yes, it should not have to be this way, but in our fallen, sinful condition, we have human blind spots and mixed motivations that prevent us from seeing problems or from acting on the problems we do see, especially when we are close to the situation.
Throughout my ministry, I have witnessed repeatedly a congregation victimized by pastoral leadership that transgresses the boundaries of Christian behavior. Christianity Today just produced a podcast series that chronicles the rise and fall of Mars Hill Church, a megachurch based in Seattle, Washington. The congregation grew from a small Bible study to a multi-site congregation with 15 locations in four states. Weekend attendance was over 12,000. Then the pastor, Mark Driscoll, and other leaders were accused of “bullying” and “patterns of persistent sinful behavior.” Within 18 months, that giant church ceased to exist. Ironically, Driscoll became pastor of another church and continues some of the same dysfunctional patterns.
One can reel off the names of other high-profile pastors and ministry leaders who for years perpetuated a pattern of life and ministry that was deceitful and destructive. Those with oversight responsibility were too close to the situation or the person to see the problems.
In Africa and other parts of the world, the pastor is sometimes given unbridled power in the congregation. Some bishops take advantage of their position for personal gain. The church becomes an environment where the leaders say what is right, rather than looking to Scripture and denominational policies and procedures. In such an atmosphere, pastors and church members alike can be harmed by arbitrary and dictatorial leadership. Denominational accountability is the only thing that can protect pastors and church members from harm.
Denominational accountability systems do not always work the way they are intended (as our own United Methodist Church’s failures in this regard testify). But at least there is a system of greater accountability that can be reformed and made more effective. I believe the system envisioned for the proposed Global Methodist Church enhances accountability and fairness in a way that addresses some of the shortfalls in our UM accountability system. Certainly, there is a much greater possibility of holding leaders and congregations accountable when that accountability comes from outside the situation. We are often much more able to see and respond to the sins and shortcomings of others than we are in ourselves or our own families.
The Power of Collective Action
The United Methodist Church is a small church denomination. Over 75 percent of the more than 30,000 congregations in the U.S. average fewer than 100 in worship attendance. Individually, small churches have limited resources to accomplish large projects. Collectively, however, churches working and contributing together can do great things for God. That is one area where The United Methodist Church has leveraged our connectional system to make a real-world difference in the lives of people all over the globe. When it comes to hunger relief, poverty alleviation, education, ministerial training, and health care to name just a few areas, the UM Church has been able to pool the resources of many small churches to achieve significant results.
It is possible for independent churches to join associations of churches or otherwise link to support missions and ministries they agree with. The value of doing so as a denomination is to have the confidence that the missions and ministries supported by the denomination are consistent with the denomination’s doctrinal and moral standards. A denomination can make a long-term commitment to a geographic area or a certain large project that can be sustained, despite the fact that individual congregations might have to drop their support for a time, as other congregations come on to make up the shortfall. There is a greater chance of consistency and effectiveness with denominational programs that have built-in oversight and accountability from outside (as mentioned earlier).
Providing Pastoral Leadership
One of the most important tasks of a denomination is to provide pastoral leadership to its congregations. The denomination vets and approves candidates for a pastoral position in terms of doctrine, skills, and personal lives. This is work that an independent congregation would have to do for itself, often without the expertise in personnel work and theology to make informed judgments. In the case of independent congregations, finding a pastor takes a number of months and often a year or more, during which time the congregation is without a pastor. Smaller congregations will attract fewer and less qualified applicants, whereas, in a denominational system clergy express their willingness to serve where needed.
Again, the United Methodist system of clergy placement is not perfect. Many appointments are good matches between congregation and pastor. Other times, the match is not good. Part of the reason for this mismatch is the guaranteed appointment, meaning all United Methodist clergy must be assigned a place to serve. The proposed Global Methodist Church will not have a guaranteed appointment, whereby clergy who are theologically incompatible or deficient in skills still receive an appointment to a church regardless. The GMC is also committed to more extensive consultation with both potential clergy and congregations to ensure the best possible match and to enable longer-term pastorates.
The important point is that, when done well, the denominational process can supply churches with quality, committed pastoral leaders who will help the congregation realize its potential. It can help guard against clergy who are doctrinally or personally unqualified to serve in leadership. The process can do most of the heavy lifting that would otherwise fall to inexperienced volunteers in the local congregation.
Practical Resources
What is a good curriculum for your church’s Sunday school? What would be a good Bible study on stewardship? How can we get our youth more involved in the life of the congregation? What outreach strategies might be effective in our community? What type of pension, health insurance, and property insurance should our church provide? How much should we pay our pastor?
The list of questions and decisions that a local church needs to deal with is endless. A denomination can give a local church the resources to address these questions. In some cases (like the pension and insurance question), the denomination can provide a program the local church can plug into that it could not duplicate on its own.
I am excited that the proposed GMC is already working through various task forces to identify and flesh out resources and ministry models that can help guide local churches into more effective ministry in many different areas. A denomination can provide those resources and guidance for local churches in a way that the local church can trust. Those resources will be theologically consistent with the denomination’s doctrine and philosophy of ministry. Those resources will be tried and proven as workable and practical. Each congregation will not have to reinvent the wheel, but can draw upon the pooled wisdom and resources that many churches being part of one denomination can provide. Having one place to turn for ideas and guidance will save time and energy at the local level that can be effectively directed into actual ministry.
Much more could be said about the benefits of being part of an effective denomination. Part of a brief childhood poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow speaks to our situation:
There was a little girl,
Who had a little curl,
Right in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good,
She was very good indeed,
But when she was bad she was horrid.
United Methodists have experienced some of the horrid aspects of being in a denomination that is dysfunctional and ineffective in some key ways. The temptation is to jettison the idea of a denomination entirely, believing that we can certainly do better on our own. That is a false temptation.
We are certainly better and more effective as churches and as individuals when we work together with like-minded believers. A denomination gives us the structure and the possibility of doing just that. Together, we can make our new denomination good and experience that it can be “very good indeed!”
by Steve | Mar 17, 2020 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, March/April 2020
Responses to the proposed plan for separation could hardly be more divergent. Some are shouting “hallelujah” and others are feeling dismissed, even sold out. We need to remember that nothing is final until General Conference has voted.
There are several components of the plan I do not like. In particular, I don’t like the perception it creates. When I was first told about it, I said, “It looks like we’re being paid off to walk away.” It doesn’t look like a separation or two new denominations being birthed. It looks like traditionalists lost, and now we’re leaving.
Having said that, I am in favor of the proposal. Let me tell you why I and most traditionalist leaders favor its passage.
First, I ask myself what’s our goal? What has been our goal for at least the past 20 years?
For me, it was never about winning or taking over the UM Church. It has been to create a vibrant evangelical Wesleyan church that is fully focused on mission and ministry – a church that is not mired in a dysfunctional and divisive struggle over sexuality.
For me the goal has never been about keeping a name – a name that in many parts of the country is a negative because it has become connected with progressive theology and non-biblical practices.
And it has not been about getting our fair share of the assets. I want that. We deserve that. But that wasn’t the goal. I was not desirous of continuing this ugly, destructive battle so we could receive additional funds. As a matter of fact, in the Yambasu negotiations that brought about the protocol, our (traditionalists’) primary concern was about funding for the Central Conferences, not ourselves.
Most of the leaders in the evangelical renewal groups have long ago accepted that we need separation. That is the result we worked for at GC 2016 and GC 2019. However, when we realized separation was off the table, the only option was an enhanced traditional plan – but that was not our first option, mainly because we knew it would not provide a long-term solution. It would prevent the church from adopting a non-biblical sexual ethic, but it would not end our struggle.
Liberal areas of the church would ignore it, progressive bishops would not enforce it, and we would remain where we were before the Traditional Plan was passed. This is exactly what has happened.
Then, new elections were held for GC 2020 delegates. And we suffered real losses. Plus, we continued to hear that some of the African bishops were willing to adopt – and they were encouraging their delegates to support – a regional conference plan that would allow the UM Church in the United States to have its own Book of Discipline and its own sexual ethics.
So, even though we “won” in 2019, there was no guarantee we would win in 2020. And even if we did, the disobedience and the division would continue.
Looking at who was elected as jurisdictional delegates, it is unlikely we will elect a single bishop in 2020 who would be committed to the full enforcement of the Discipline. And our church structure and constitution have made it nearly impossible to remove a bishop who refuses to uphold the Discipline.
So, the question is: After 47 years, how much longer do we continue to fight the same battle with the same results – good legislation that doesn’t change the reality of the church? How many more years should we spend precious financial, emotional, and spiritual resources on this same issue?
The decision was made that what was most important was allowing churches and annual conferences to vote to step into a vibrant Wesleyan connection with all their properties and with no payments required to the UM Church or to their annual conferences. In other words, it was time to move forward in a positive way for the sake of mission and witness.
In all honesty, I fully understand those who are upset about our not keeping the name “United Methodist.” I realize the name is important to many, but others view our brand as having been so tarnished that keeping it is not a long-term benefit.
I understand people who say, “The progressives and centrists want to change the UM Church – they should leave, not those of us who want to be who we have always been.” I get it when people say, “GC 2019 was called to resolve this matter and it did. Traditionalists won. Those who want to change the Book of Discipline should leave, not us.” People who say those things are right. That’s the way it should be.
