by Steve | Dec 29, 2022 | Uncategorized
By Thomas Lambrecht
This is the final week of Advent, a season of preparing to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ and preparing for his coming again. Advent reminds us that we are in the time “between the times.” We are in the time between Jesus’ first and second Advents (comings). As Professor George Eldon Ladd reminded us, we are in the transition between the already and the not yet.
God’s Kingdom has already come to earth in the form of King Jesus and in the hearts and lives of Jesus’ followers, including us. But God’s Kingdom awaits its full realization when Jesus comes again “to judge the living and the dead.” The book of Revelation and other Scripture passages paint a glorious picture of what the fullness of God’s Kingdom will mean.
But it is uncomfortable to be in between, to be in transition. We have an idea what is coming, but we are not there yet.
Some of my grandchildren have a problem with transitions. It is hard for them to stop doing one thing in order to do a different thing. My daughter has to prepare them for the transition by warning them, “We are going to stop playing and get in the car in five minutes.” That warning enables them to adjust their minds and expectations to what is coming next.
We are in a transition time in The United Methodist Church. At last count, over 2,000 congregations have disaffiliated from the denomination. That represents 6.6 percent of all United Methodist churches in the United States. It is estimated that about that many more are in the process of discernment toward disaffiliating next year before the opportunity to disaffiliate ends on December 31, 2023.
Those remaining in The United Methodist Church are in the process of revisioning what the church will look like and how it will operate with 10-15 percent fewer members and churches.
Those joining the Global Methodist Church are in the process of constructing new annual conferences in various parts of the U.S., as well as in countries overseas. Critical decisions have yet to be made, such as how to elect and assign bishops.
Those churches becoming independent are figuring out how to operate without the support of a denominational structure.
In all cases, we are leaving behind what is familiar and heading into uncharted territory. We have some idea what the future might look like, but there are also many unknowns.
It is tempting to want to stay with what is familiar, even though that world of the past is no longer available to us. The Israelites in the Wilderness longed to go back to slavery in Egypt, at times. Yet the slavery they would have gone back to would have been different from the slavery they left. There is no such thing as going back to what we once knew.
That is why Paul reminds us, “We live by faith, not by sight” (II Corinthians 5:7). Often, we cannot see the pathway to the future God has for us. However, we can trust the One who leads and guides us each step of the way. We can stay stuck in the past, or we can follow the living Lord into the incredible future he has for us. Each day, we can take the next step God has for us, knowing it will eventually lead us to our true home with him.
Mary and Joseph did not know what the future held when they agreed to become the human parents of the Savior of the world. No father or mother knows what the future will hold on the day their child is born. Yet, we have children in hope for the future and in faith that God will lead and guide us into and through that future.
The decisions we are making now in our churches, whether to disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church or remain, are decisions guided by faith and hope in a future held by God. They are decisions that should not be guided by fear or a desire to cling to the past, but are decisions based on a confidence that God will not let us down.
Transitions remind us we are not in control. The wisest saying I have ever heard is, “God is God, and I am not!” That saying has become a mantra for me, acknowledging my life is not my own, but God’s. He is in control. My role is to respond to his leading and be faithful to what he is calling me to be.
Yes, transitions are uncomfortable. Journeying into an unknown future can be intimidating. We can walk through this transition with confidence by adjusting our expectations. Things will not be like they once were. In this season, there is no way to keep what once was. Our only course is to walk into a future we choose, guided and empowered by God, just as Mary and Joseph did. All the rest is up to the Lord.
I pray you experience a blessed and rich Christmas celebration, filled with the joy and peace of Christ.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Dec 16, 2022 | Uncategorized
By Thomas Lambrecht
This week, the United Methodist Judicial Council (the equivalent of our church supreme court) handed down Decision 1451 regarding the processes to govern the 2024 meeting of the General Conference. This decision responded to requests from the Kenya-Ethiopia, Western Pennsylvania, and Alaska Annual Conferences.
The Judicial Council decided that the 2024 meeting of the General Conference will be considered a postponed session of the 2020 General Conference, rather than the regular 2024 General Conference session. As a result, all legislation already submitted to the 2020 General Conference remains to be considered by the 2024 session. Additional legislation may be submitted by September 2023. More importantly, there is no need to elect new delegates to serve at the 2024 General Conference. Delegates elected for 2020 will continue to serve.
This decision and its rationale reinforce the idea that the Judicial Council appears to have lost its moorings to church law and is making up its own rules as it goes along. The advent of the Covid pandemic and its resultant meeting and travel restrictions has created a situation not envisioned or provided for in our Book of Discipline. The Judicial Council appears to be taking advantage of that situation to create church law and make decisions based on the whims of the Council, rather than holding to precedent and providing consistent interpretation and guidance of the Discipline, which is their job.
Readers not interested in the technical analysis to follow may skip to the last section on Fallout from the Decision to see its practical effects.
New Delegates
The crux of the matter is whether new delegates needed to be elected for the 2024 General Conference (whether that conference is called a postponed 2020 session or a regular 2024 session). The Discipline is clear. Par. 502.3 requires, “Delegates to the General Conference shall be elected at the
session of the annual conference held not more than two annual conference sessions before the calendar year preceding the session of the General Conference.” At face value, this means that delegates elected before 2022 could not serve at the 2024 session of the General Conference. Delegates for the 2020 General Conference were elected, for the most part, in 2019 and therefore should not be able to serve in 2024.
However, the Judicial Council disregards the plain meaning of Par. 502.3 and states, “Under this disciplinary paragraph, elections conducted at either the 2018 or 2019 session of annual conference would be valid and operative for the 2020 General Conference.”
The Judicial Council ignores its own precedent in previous decisions. In Decision 1429, the Council asks, “Hence, the issue boils down to one question: Does ‘opening session’ of the General Conference mean (a) the original date or (b) a future scheduled event?” The decision goes on to find that “it clearly describes the term [opening session] in a way indicating an event, not a date.” The decision cites the Plan of Organization and Rules of Order of the General Conference. “Here too, ‘opening session’ is understood to be an event composed of various segments such as worship and call to order. We cannot find anything in The Discipline or the Plan that would suggest otherwise. The textual basis is sufficient to support the interpretation (b) above.” The effect of this interpretation in Decision 1429 was, “The deadlines for petitions submission in ¶ 507 are based on the date of the postponed General Conference and reset with each postponement.”
Under Decision 1429, the “session” of the General Conference is the “future event” when it actually convenes and is reset with each postponement. In line with that precedent, the election of delegates “more than two annual conference sessions before the calendar year preceding the session of the General Conference” would be illegal. Yet, that is precisely what new Decision 1451 allows. It now defines the “session” as the originally scheduled date. The Judicial Council wants to have it both ways, depending on which outcome it desires.
Why a Postponed 2020 Conference?
The rationale given by the Judicial Council for why the 2024 session of the General Conference should be regarded as the postponed 2020 Conference is very weak.
Decision 1451 states, “The Constitution further establishes the minimum frequency at which the General Conference must convene, not the actual year when this occurs. ‘The General Conference shall meet once in four years at such time and in such place as shall be determined by the General Conference or by its duly authorized committees.’ Constitution. Par. 14. A cancellation would cause the number of General Conference sessions to drop below the quadrennial minimum and violate this constitutional mandate.”
I have news for the Judicial Council: the postponement of the 2020 General Conference until 2024 already causes “the number of General Conference sessions to drop below the quadrennial minimum and violate this constitutional mandate.” We were in violation of the constitutional mandate in 2021 when it had been more than four years since the previous General Conference. Exigent circumstances prohibited the conference from meeting in 2020 or 2021, but not (we would argue) in 2022 or 2023. By postponing the conference until 2024, we are already dropping the number of General Conferences below the quadrennial minimum. The Judicial Council is not requiring the church to hold two General Conferences in 2024 to restore the correct number of General Conferences.
Decision 1451 finds “no basis in Church law” for “cancelling or skipping the 2020 General Conference and requiring new elections to be held.” There is no basis in church law for postponing the General Conference beyond the fourth year after the previous conference, either. Yet, the Judicial Council has allowed that postponement. By postponing the 2020 General Conference until 2024 and not holding two General Conferences in 2024, the church is already skipping a session of the General Conference. Fear that church law does not allow skipping a General Conference is therefore not a valid reason for requiring the postponed 2020 General Conference to be held in 2024, since such a postponement already skips a General Conference.
Decision 1451 states, “Viewed from the last regular session of General Conference in 2016, the postponed 2020 session falls squarely within the time window of ¶ 14.” Except that it does not. The time window of Par. 14 requires General Conference to meet “once in four years.” In 2024, it will have been eight years since the previous General Conference met – clearly outside the four-year time window.
Begging the Question
Another reason the Judicial Council gives for treating the 2024 session of General Conference as the postponed 2020 General Conference is the fact that, “From the beginning, the Commission on the General Conference – the body authorized to fix the time and place of General Conference – understood its action to be postponement, not cancellation.” But that simply begs the question. The purpose of the requests for a Judicial Council decision was to determine whether the Commission was correct in styling the 2024 conference as a postponement, rather than a cancellation. The fact that the Commission did so does not form a legal basis for its being right.
Decision 1451 further argues, “Likewise, the Judicial Council adhered to this understanding by consistently referring to ‘the postponement of the 2020 General Conference’ in JCD 1409, 1410, and 1429.” Again, this begs the question of whether this remains true regarding a session held in 2024. The earlier decisions were issued before the conference was postponed until 2024 for the third time. That third postponement fundamentally changed the situation and the facts of the case. The first two postponements were required by government actions restricting travel and meetings due to Covid. The third postponement was discretionary, not required by government actions.
Negating Annual Conference Rights?
Finally, Decision 1451 argues that “the members of an annual conference have not only the constitutional duty but also right to vote ‘on the election of clergy and lay delegates to the General and the jurisdictional or central conferences.’ Const. ¶ 33.” But requiring new elections for delegates does not nullify the right of the annual conference to vote to elect delegates. It simply insists that, due to exigent circumstances, new delegates need to be elected by those annual conferences.
Any number of delegates who were elected in 2019 are no longer able to serve for the 2024 conference. Tragically, some have died. Some were elected bishop and are no longer eligible to be delegates. Some laypersons have since been ordained clergy and can no longer serve as the lay delegates they were elected to be. Some have moved away from the annual conference in which they were elected and transferred their membership, making them ineligible to serve. And recently, some delegates have disaffiliated from the UM Church, making them ineligible to serve. The Judicial Council cannot seriously maintain that it is “essential to open and fair elections, the cornerstone of our connectional and democratic polity” that all those delegates originally elected in 2019 must serve in 2024. The passage of time and changing circumstances have made that impossible.
Decision 1451 goes on, “Cancelling or skipping the 2020 General Conference and requiring new elections to be held would be tantamount to overturning the results of the 2019 elections and disenfranchising the clergy and lay members of an annual conference who voted in good faith. It would also deprive delegates of their right to be seated and serve at the session of General Conference for which they were duly elected.”
It is not this Judicial Council decision that “deprives delegates of their right to be seated and serve.” In the first instance, it was Covid and resulting government actions that caused the postponement of the conference. And it was the decision of the Commission on General Conference not to meet in 2022 or 2023 that then “deprived those delegates of the right to be seated and serve.” Jurisdictional and central conferences have met in 2022. General Conference could have, as well. That was the Commission’s decision.
Further, the Judicial Council’s decision not to require new delegate elections deprives the current annual conferences of the right to vote to elect delegates and for delegates who might have been elected for 2024 to serve in that capacity. They now must wait until 2028. That is just as unfair, and to quote the decision, “There is no basis in Church law for such course of action” of skipping elections for 2024 delegates.
Fallout from the Decision
One might wonder why this decision matters. Why spill so much ink dissecting a decision that only a small percentage of United Methodists would be passionate about?
The primary fallout from Decision 1451 is to disenfranchise United Methodist members in Africa. The number of delegates is based on the number of clergy and lay members in each annual conference. The 2020 delegates were based on 2016 numbers. The 2024 delegates would have been based on 2020 numbers.
The 2020 delegation included 278 from Africa and 482 from the U.S. African delegates hold 32 percent of the delegation, and the U.S. 56 percent.
Based on preliminary calculations, a new 2024 delegation would have included 322 from Africa and 440 from the U.S. That shift of 42-44 delegates would have taken African representation to 37 percent and reduced U.S. representation to 51 percent. That five-point shift is a very significant shift in representation and power that the African church will be deprived of. (Through a quirk in the delegate formula, although African members now comprise 52 percent of the global church membership, they would only have 37 percent of the delegates, a separate and further injustice. African membership in 2020 stood at 6.8 million, and the U.S. had 6.2 million.)
It is unconscionable that our African brothers and sisters are being systematically deprived of equal representation in the church by this decision. Now they will not be allocated the number of delegates to which they are entitled by the formula. One cannot escape the impression that this was one of the motivating factors for the Judicial Council decision. The desire to hang on to progressive U.S. representation at the expense of fair African representation bodes ill for the future of the church. It provides a “raw power” explanation for an otherwise incoherent Judicial Council decision. One wonders if the African members of the Council were unaware of the implications of this decision, or they would surely have spoken up against this injustice against their part of the church. In an era when people are rightly concerned about voter suppression in secular elections, one could hardly come up with a better example than what the Judicial Council decision does.
A second and more far-reaching fallout of this decision is to potentially delegitimize Judicial Council decisions. In all the rationales put forward by the Council for its decision, as analyzed above, there is not one solid church law basis for the decision. Instead, the Council twists the Discipline to accommodate its desired outcome and disregards previous recent decisions when they are inconvenient.
A Judicial Council that makes its decisions based on church politics rather than the Discipline is dysfunctional. It joins a Council of Bishops that is dysfunctional and a General Conference that has not been allowed to function (through postponement). All the major institutions of our church government are unable to give consistent, principled leadership to the church. Instead, they have been usurped by an inability to provide stability and legitimacy to denominational processes. The result is chaos, with different parts of the church and different leaders doing what is right in their own eyes, sacrificing any sense of a unified approach. The Covid crisis has given an excuse for different parts of the church to make exceptions to following the Discipline where they want to, while in other instances holding to the extreme letter of the church law. This failure of consistent, principled church leadership is why many lay and clergy members do not trust the institutional United Methodist Church or its governing processes. It provides yet another compelling reason to seek separation, rather than continue in a denomination that has run amok.
###
Update of Last Week’s Perspective
In last week’s survey of various Methodist denominations, an error was made regarding Free Methodist bishops. They do not serve until retirement once elected. Instead, they serve four-year terms and may be reelected. The online version of the article has been corrected. The one-page comparison chart has also been corrected, which gives it a new link. The corrected chart may be accessed HERE.
Some have wondered why other Methodist denominations were not included in the comparison. There would not have been space to include the dozens of U.S. Methodist denominations, most of them fairly small. It would also have increased the confusion. Those denominations that have attracted some interest from disaffiliating United Methodists as a potential landing spot were included.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Dec 9, 2022 | In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht
By the end of this year (2022), about 2,000 local churches will have disaffiliated from The United Methodist Church. Hundreds more will do so next year. Where will they end up? A few will remain as independent Methodist churches. The vast majority will align with another Methodist denomination. But which one?
The leading candidate for most congregations is the Global Methodist Church (GMC). As one who helped in a small way to form that denomination, it is my recommended option to local churches. It was founded by United Methodist renewal leaders who have been in the struggle for years and in some cases decades. The GMC was formed in such a way as to address some of the shortcomings we have experienced in the current United Methodist crisis. I believe it is well positioned to give good leadership and resourcing to local congregations for ministry in the 21st century.
There are other options, however. Two prominent churches have aligned with the Free Methodist Church. Within the Wesleyan sphere, other options include the Church of the Nazarene, the Wesleyan Church, and the Congregational Methodist Church.
The purpose of this article is to compare a few important variables in each of the denominations, so that congregations have a realistic idea of what each has to offer. One should explore more deeply those denominations that are of interest, since some positive factors might be offset by other negative factors, and vice versa. But the variables I have chosen to highlight might be non-negotiables, or at least very important, in deciding whether to explore a particular denomination further.
Doctrine
Since the root of the divide in United Methodism is doctrinal, it is important to look at the doctrines of any potential denominational homes. All the denominations mentioned above, including the UM Church and the GMC, espouse Wesleyan doctrine on paper, including a clear traditional definition of marriage and human sexuality. What has caused division in the UM Church is the failure to ensure that clergy and bishops maintain their preaching and teaching within the boundaries of our doctrinal standards.
The GMC promises a more robust doctrinal accountability. In addition, the GMC has added the Apostles and Nicene Creeds to its doctrine, emphasizing the continuity that the GMC has with historic, traditional Christian doctrine.
With a lack of anecdotal evidence at this point, it is difficult to discern how faithful the other Methodist denominations are to their doctrinal statements. My assumption is that they take doctrinal accountability more seriously and their preaching and teaching stays within the boundaries of their doctrines.
Trust Clause
As United Methodists are experiencing, the presence of a trust clause means that the denomination has first claim on the local church’s property and requires denominational approval for disaffiliation, as well as for the sale, purchase, renovation, or mortgage of local church property. The current waves of disaffiliation would not be the wrenching battle that it is without the trust clause and the denomination’s ability to make the process difficult or even impossible in some places.
The GMC has no trust clause. The congregation has complete control of its property in every way. In addition, there is a simple and straightforward process for local churches to disaffiliate from the GMC, should that ever become necessary.
The Free Methodist Church is allowing churches who transfer into the denomination to maintain control of the property they bring with them. Any new property acquired by the congregation while in the Free Methodist Church is subject to a trust clause.
The Wesleyan and Nazarene Churches both have a trust clause giving the denomination control of local property. The Congregational Methodist Church does not have a trust clause.
Bishops
United Methodist bishops are elected for life, except in a few of the central conferences outside the U.S. Retired bishops continue serving on the Council of Bishops, with voice but without vote. As such, retired bishops continue to have a strong impact on the decisions and directions of the Council.
The GMC will have bishops elected for a term to be determined at the convening General Conference. It will probably be a term limit of 12 years served as an active bishop. Retired bishops will not have a continuing official role in guiding the denomination.
Free Methodist bishops are elected to four-year terms and eligible for reelection. Nazarene leaders are called General Superintendents and six are elected to four-year terms and eligible for reelection. The Wesleyan Church has one General Superintendent for the entire denomination, elected to a four-year term and eligible for reelection. The Congregational Methodist Church has one president with minimal authority, since it is a very small denomination and operates with a congregational polity.
Clergy Appointment
In The United Methodist Church, clergy are appointed by the bishop with the involvement of the district superintendent and some level of input from the congregation that can vary from one conference to another. In the GMC, appointment will also be by the bishop with the involvement of the district superintendent, but with a much greater and more consistent level of input from the congregation. It is further proposed to the GMC convening General Conference that churches be allowed to seek out their own pastor if they desire, with the assistance and final approval of the bishop. Whereas United Methodist clergy appointments are usually made on a year-by-year basis, GMC appointments will be made as intentionally longer-term appointments, affording the local church more pastoral consistency.
The Free Methodists Church are appointed by a Ministerial Appointments committee chaired by the bishop. That committee includes both laity and clergy from the annual conference. Pastors serve until a change is requested by the local church or by the pastor, or until a missional need elsewhere calls for a change.
Both the Wesleyan and Nazarene Churches have a congregational call system for clergy. They extend the call for an indefinite term, with review at least every four years. The Congregational Methodist Church also has a call system, with pastors being called to an open-ended term of service.
Denominational Financial Support
United Methodist congregations generally pay between 7-15 percent of their budget to the annual conference, jurisdiction, and general church. While many churches do pay 100 percent of their apportionments, the average collection rate for apportionments runs between 75 and 90 percent for the annual conference as a whole.
The GMC is initially asking churches to give one percent of their operating income to the annual conference and one percent to the general church. There is a cap of no more than five percent to the annual conference and 1.5 percent to the general church. Mission giving will not be through connectional giving, but through direct giving to partner annual conferences, districts, projects, and congregations in other areas.
Apportionments for Free Methodists amount to between 10 and 13 percent of local church income. For the Wesleyan Church, it is 11 percent. The Nazarene Church expects 15 percent, which also includes the pastor’s pension. The Congregational Methodist Church congregations give whatever they decide to give beyond the local church, and there is minimal denominational structure.
Denominational Size
One important factor is the size of the denomination and whether there will be enough churches and clergy to allow for supportive fellowship, cooperative work, and adequate resourcing of the local church. Another consideration is whether an influx of United Methodist members and congregations would overwhelm a denomination’s current culture.
Of course, no Methodist denomination rivals the size of United Methodism, which currently has about 6.2 million members in the U.S., along with approximately 30,000 congregations (2020). There are also over 5 million members outside the U.S. in Africa, Asia, and Europe.
It is estimated that 3,000 to 5,000 congregations will disaffiliate from the UM Church by the end of 2023. We have not yet compiled the membership numbers of disaffiliating churches, but a conservative estimate is that those disaffiliating churches represent 300,000 to 500,000 members. If perhaps 80 percent join the GMC, that would yield a denomination of 240,000 to 400,000 members by the end of 2023.
The largest of the other Wesleyan-oriented denominations is the Nazarene Church, with 637,000 members in 5,280 congregations in the U.S. (2016). Globally, the Nazarenes have 2.67 million members in 30,600 congregations. It is a truly global denomination, with congregations in Central and South America, Africa, Eurasia, and Asia/Pacific. Looking at just the U.S. part of the church, however, if substantial numbers of United Methodists joined the Nazarenes, they could make up a significant percentage of the members.
That situation is even more pronounced for the other Methodist-oriented denominations. The Wesleyans have about 125,000 members and 234,000 total attendees in 1,500 congregations in the U.S. (2019). The Free Methodists have 77,000 members in 1,050 congregations (2015). The Congregational Methodist Church has about 15,000 members in 150 congregations.
Size considerations and unique denominational distinctions were important factors in the need to start the Global Methodist Church. If all the disaffiliating United Methodists decided to join one of the existing Methodist denominations, it would be very difficult. 400,000 United Methodists joining the Nazarenes would create a church of 1.037 million in the U.S., of which 39 percent would be former United Methodists. If they joined the Wesleyan Church, there would be 634,000 members, of which 63 percent would be former United Methodists. We would dwarf the Free Methodists or Congregational Methodists.
It is unlikely any of those denominations would welcome that many new members from another denomination. The impact would be devastating on the culture of the receiving denomination. It would be like having a congregation of 100 members experience 65 or more new members joining it all at once. Those new members would want to have a significant voice in how the church is organized and run, which could cause resentment by the existing members and would unquestionably change the character of the congregation. Avoiding this awkwardness was one of the primary drivers in the need to start the GMC.
History
Another factor in this alignment decision is that each of the existing Methodist denominations has its own history and tradition. Many of us are used to United Methodist history and tradition, dating back to John and Charles Wesley (1740’s) and Francis Asbury, William Otterbein, and Jacob Albright (1790’s). The Wesleyan Church (1843), Congregational Methodist Church (1852), Free Methodist (1860), and Nazarene (1908) all have their own set of “founding fathers and mothers” and their own history and tradition. They do share Methodist history from the Wesleys until the time of their own founding, often as a separation from the Methodist Church. Joining one of these other denominations would be to adopt that history and tradition as one’s own.
When two people get married, they each bring their own family history and tradition with them on a relatively equal basis. Together, they start something new and create some elements of new history and new tradition to build on what they received. They both learn each other’s family history and tradition and respect that history and tradition.
Joining an existing Methodist denomination, however, would be like getting married and leaving one’s own history and tradition behind, while learning and adopting a new history and tradition that is well over a century old. That other Methodist denomination would not feel inclined to “catch up” on our United Methodist history and tradition, so we would not be on an equal basis. We would be adopted into a new family and learn a new way of doing things that has been established through a long evolution.
By contrast, joining the Global Methodist Church offers the opportunity to be in a denomination where we all have the shared history of United Methodism and the shared experience of going through disaffiliation together. Building on that shared history and experience, we would all be on an equal basis in forming new traditions and new ways of doing ministry together, rather than adopting something that is already set up.
There are pros and cons to both approaches. Some people like having all the questions settled and long established, so would be attracted to joining an existing denomination that has a set pattern of life and ministry. Other people want to have a voice in deciding how things will be done going forward, so would be attracted to a new denomination where their voice could make a difference.
All these factors and many more play into the decision of what denomination to align with. As I have written before, it is much healthier to be part of a denomination, rather than being simply an independent congregation. Hopefully, the above (admittedly biased) reflections and information can be helpful in making that decision.
For further information and research, see the following websites:
Global Methodist Church – globalmethodist.org
Free Methodist Church – fmcusa.org
Wesleyan Church – Wesleyan.org
Church of the Nazarene – Nazarene.org
Congregational Methodist Church – cm-church.org
A chart form of the above comparisons is available HERE.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Dec 8, 2022 | In the News
By Charles L. Harrell
The Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference (BWC) is one of those conferences that Good News and the Wesleyan Covenant Association has identified as imposing egregious terms on disaffiliating local churches, particularly the levy of 50 percent of the church’s property value. The Rev. Charles Harrell reports on a conversation held by the BWC Wesleyan Covenant Association board with Bishop Latrelle Easterling and the conference Trustees appealing for a change in that requirement, critiquing the rationales the trustees provided for levying such a financial burden on local churches. His responses will be helpful in advancing the argument in other annual conferences imposing similar requirements.
Brand Value?
The Trustees presented several reasons why they felt their ask of 50 percent of property value to be justified. One reason was that churches seeking to disaffiliate have had the use of the United Methodist name and all that goes with it, such as the cross-and-flame logo. The argument holds that people looking for a church home see the UM name and symbol, and it attracts them.
Sadly, this claim isn’t as true as it used to be. The Methodist name and related symbols might have been a draw in 1950, perhaps even at the time of the merger that formed the current UM Church in 1968. But the reality is much different now, when denominational identification is often more a liability than an asset. If the Trustees wish to appeal to an argument about the power of denominational identification, that’s fair. But to be credible, it would be better to deploy one that’s not a half-century out of date.
Provider of Pastors?
The Trustees also point out that the conference provides pastors to the churches. This is true. But if the trend lines for membership and worship attendance are any indication of the effectiveness of many clergy, one might expect a little more modesty concerning just who it was who credentialed and sent them. It’s also worth noting that the Trustees’ point could be turned around: it is the local churches that provide a place of employment with salary and other support for those pastors that the conference or districts credential and employ. Oddly, that detail does not seem to figure in the conversation.
Historical Example: Wesley’s Methodism?
The Trustees also pointed out to the WCA leadership that when the Methodist movement started in Britain, later separating from the Anglicans, it didn’t look to claim property but went out on its own. Frankly, this is hilarious: people should blush to say things like this. The Wesleyan societies were organized as what today would be called parachurch bodies. They were never congregations of the Church of England. In a country with a state church like Britain, all church property was under the direct control of the diocese or the occasional patron. Methodism in Britain was not an established free (independent) church at the time of its separation from Anglicanism; and the Church of England was not organized, built, funded or maintained by free congregations, as is the case for American Methodism in all its forms. To compare the Anglican situation in the eighteenth century with the American context today goes even beyond comparing of apples to oranges. Think perhaps apples to footballs.
The Trust Clause
Naturally, the Trust Clause came up in the conversation. The bishop observed that the existence of the Trust Clause should be no surprise, especially to clergy, as it has been there since 1968.
Well, then. That’s a slam dunk, right? Hardly.
In one sense, the bishop was more correct than the history she acknowledged: the Trust Clause goes way back before 1968 to the beginning of denominational Methodism in America. All that history is also on the table, and its origin was not in 1968, but in 1784. In fact, the timeline stretches back further still: the roots of our Trust Clause are to be found in the Model Deed from Great Britain.
The Model Deed was John Wesley’s safeguard to protect the movement’s investments in property after the painful experience of the Fetter Lane Society, where asset control (and the related quality control over the preaching and teaching) was lost. Beginning with the Foundry in London, Wesley made sure his previous mistake wasn’t repeated. Still, only the immediate purpose of the Model Deed and Trust Clause was to maintain control of the property. It was actually designed to pursue a much deeper purpose, which was to place boundaries around the integrity of Methodism’s teaching and practice. In other words, it was created to ensure that property would be used for the exclusive, faithful use of congregations loyal to the doctrine and discipline of the church.
Fast-forward to the present. The landscape is blanketed with property that was provided for at great expense and with much trouble and sacrifice by Methodists across the intervening generations who were faithful to that doctrine and discipline. Only now, the Trust Clause is being used to bully into submission those congregations who want to retain the doctrine that it was instituted to protect. These churches resist their annual conference’s pursuit of policies that are the at odds with the Discipline, to say nothing of Scripture, on points of moral teaching. The Trust Clause has been converted from a safeguard into a bludgeon to compel compliance with conference actions that have defied the order and discipline of The United Methodist Church. It is being used to punish them severely if, based on those same doctrines faithfully held, such churches decide to leave what they discern to be a connection whose fidelity to its roots has been seriously compromised.
Who could have anticipated such a situation? Who indeed might have foreseen that the very property clause designed to maintain integrity would be used against the faithful who hold to the church’s order and discipline, and in fact are so loyal to them that they are willing to sever ties with the denomination rather than abandon them? The apple has fallen far from the tree of 1784, that the Trust Clause could be made to work this way.
It’s Only Money and Property
The Trustees have further suggested that, if the traditionalist concern is really a matter of conscience, as opposed to being about property and finances, then people are free to go their own way at any time. At day’s end, no one is locked into a church building or chained to a pulpit.
Aside from being harsh and cynical, this contention of the Trustees is also more than a little superficial. A proper and faithful theology of wealth can never say, with a toss of the head, “Oh, it’s just money. It’s just property,” as though it were really nothing. (Not incidentally, if that were true, could the Trustees not say it themselves just as easily, rather than pressing for every last nickel?)
But let’s set even that aside. The assets in question are, in many cases, the endowment of generations of faithful Christians. These resources were donated, raised, or provided with great effort and with real costs to persons and families. They came into being by the loving sweat of young and old alike across decades, even centuries in some instances. The use to which they would be put if surrendered, and the ideologies behind that use, are frequently at odds with the hearts that gave it. They can reflect purposes and goals that are diametrically opposed to, even contemptuous of, the vision of the givers of those gifts to the glory of God.
Seeking to retain it for faithful use by the continuing body of worshipers in that place, whatever label they bear, is not a function of greed or a matter of convenience for the departing congregation. It is a recognition that just to surrender these resources, or even a substantial portion, would be ethically problematic.
The 50-50 Divorce Analogy
Sometimes, the division of the UMC is compared to a divorce. There are, after all, divisions of property in a divorce. In such a situation, the aim of any court or judge is to be equitable to both parties. So why isn’t 50 percent a fair figure?
Consider a hypothetical scenario. A couple marries. He has a respected name and worthy reputation. She is thrilled to be joined to his future, and they start a life together with high hopes. So in love is she that she doesn’t mind that, while he has the name, she is bringing all the funds – every cent – that will build their home, and manage their household.
But then, by degrees, things begin to go sour in their life together. While she hangs on patiently and hopefully, he begins unilaterally to change the terms of their union, to the point of betraying his promises to her. Of course, he claims that his understanding has evolved and that he should not be held to such outmoded notions of fidelity. He begins to criticize her and her view of their life together: he suggests that she is slow-witted and hopelessly old-fashioned. He intimates that she will never amount to anything; that everything she’s ever done or achieved is either due to her circumstances or because she wears his name.
So, what does she do? She waits; she pleads; she prays. She reminds him of their covenant together. But he has “moved on,” he says; and he does what he wants because he can. And when she objects, when she pleads the nature of the sacred bond between them, he tells her she can leave any time she wishes. Of course, she’ll need to leave everything behind. His name, of course; but more than that, everything she brought to the union over the years. And even though it was her resources that provided the family home, she has to leave that, too – though there is one “generous” provision: if she wants to keep the dwelling she has paid for, and the contents thereof, she must pay him an additional half of the value she has already given and follow the exact process for doing so that he sets out for her. Else, he keeps it all.
This situation is as heartbreaking as it is unjust, a travesty of the bonds of love and faithfulness that are supposed to undergird a marriage. Any reasonable person would howl with outrage over such an abusive situation in marriage.
Yet this is very much the situation in which our traditionalist churches find themselves. After much patience and prayer amid a deteriorating situation over years, they have determined that their best and most faithful course is to leave a relationship with The United Methodist Church that has become toxic and abusive for them.
The congregations built and purchased the houses of worship to begin with and have maintained them across time. Year by year, these congregations financed the continuing ministry and supported, through their apportionments or “mission shares,” the work of the annual conference and the general Church. They also supported the clergy sent to them.
But the terms of that relationship have been unilaterally changed by the conference, which was to have been to them a benevolent partner in their work. A new pattern has emerged. The conference takes actions which are unfaithful to the covenant, doing so knowingly, willingly, and because it can. When the congregants of these churches object, they are given to understand that they just need to grow a bit, to evolve, and not be so backward or slow-witted. They may be told that anything they’ve been able to do is because of the circumstances of their location or because they have carried the name: the UMC label. If they really want to leave, of course, they can do so; but they take nothing with them for their re-establishment or support: not the name, not the goods – unless, of course, they follow a process that has been dictated to them and pony up another 50 percent of the value they have already raised in real property over the church’s lifetime.
Sadly, what would be unjust if it were about an actual married couple becomes perfectly acceptable when those on the receiving end are a congregation of Christians, fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, who take a different view which they want to hold in peace. Their view is actually in keeping with the doctrine of The United Methodist Church, in alignment with its Discipline, and faithfully reflects the evangelistic and social-Christian mission of that denomination stretching back to its beginning. Demanding the church pay half the property value in order to keep it, when they have already contributed the whole amount, is fundamentally unjust.
Breach of Covenant
The Trustees also took issue with a BW-WCA board member’s having raised a question about breach of covenant as shown by the ordination of persons who are not eligible under the Discipline. This aroused some annoyance, it seems, even though the WCA members were clear that the Trustees were not being blamed for that occurrence, which fell under the responsibility of the Board of Ordained Ministry. “We are all one conference,” came the reply. The WCA member was trying to give the Trustees an “out,” but they clearly didn’t want it.
In that case, then, the situation is even clearer, and the remedy suggests itself readily. Since the church’s doctrine is being upheld by the traditionalists, if anyone should pay a usage fee for the display of the name and logo, it should be those who are teaching and acting at variance with the Book of Discipline. Any fees should be covered in full by the conference which is now usurping the use of the name and logo for a different agenda.
A Moral Issue
A WCA member also questioned the morality of the 50 percent charge. The Trustees didn’t like that and indicated that some offense was taken over the question. The bishop also indicated that it was inappropriate to speak of morality and hoped that would not come up again.
It is totally understandable that the conference leadership would desire to avoid speaking of morality because it is on the wrong side of this question. This is seen from its flagrant violations of the Discipline, from the deceptive misappropriation of Methodist history, and from the fleecing of congregations for resources that the conference had little, if any, real role in building and yet has been benefiting from since the day that those local churches were first chartered. It is on the wrong side in the dismissive contempt it has shown to faithful United Methodists who choose to uphold the teaching represented by the Book of Discipline, and in the leadership’s insinuation of sub-Christian motives on the part of those who dare to take the traditionalist view.
The conference’s leadership is on the wrong side in a larger sense, too: not only concerning matters of human sexuality, but also respecting the universal church’s broader and deeper cherishing of the authority of sacred Scripture back to the witness of the apostles, and its rooting in the divinely revealed religion of Israel.
So, yes, it’s completely understandable that the leadership should find discussions of morality embarrassing, troubling, and burdensome, and express a powerful desire to avoid them at all costs – understandable, but unsupportable.
Grace and Peace
The conference can, and should, yet stand to the full height of its capacity for mercy and peace, availing itself of the wisdom that would come with a more gracious strategy for allowing churches to exit. Such a plan would rely less on the politics of power and more on the recognition that there are no real winners along a road that can only lead to deepened divisions and a more profound bitterness, as we have seen in other denominational splits in recent years.
My prayer and plea is that the BWC through its committees and officers will do the right thing and abolish the 50 percent penalty, even refunding it to those separated churches that have already paid such a crippling price.
Perhaps in all the controversy, the ability to love has been lost in the hearts of many, toward those who see the issues before the denomination in ways different from themselves. But we are all supposed to be grounded in that greater Love, a love which, even amid sharp disagreement, can find a way to be generous of heart and bless the other as we go in different directions, each convinced that we are following God’s call. That’s how we can even now prove to be true brothers and sisters to one another across the debates and divides, and bless those who find that their local church’s future draws them in a new direction, toward a new expression of Methodism.
It’s the higher road for all concerned. Let’s take it.
Charles L. Harrell is an ordained elder in the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference.
by Steve | Nov 22, 2022 | In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht
With the recent election of thirteen new bishops, the active Council of Bishops will be made up of one-third new members on January 1, 2023. As such, they will play a powerful role in setting the direction of The United Methodist Church into the future. What do their election and the other actions of the jurisdictional conferences tell us about what that direction might be? This article is the second of two surveying that question. The first may be read here.
Traditionalists in the Post-Separation UM Church
Some traditionalists will unquestionably remain in the UM Church following the current spate of separations. A 2019 survey found that 44 percent of United Methodist grassroots members identified as theologically conservative or traditional. Twenty-eight percent identified as theologically centrist or moderate. Twenty percent identified as theologically liberal or progressive. Even if half of the traditionalist members leave the UM Church, those remaining would be more than one-fourth of the church’s members. Their share would still be larger than those identifying as progressive.
The question is whether traditionalists will be represented in leadership of the denomination after separation. In 2016, seven of the 15 bishops elected in the U.S. (nearly half) could be considered theologically traditionalist. (Some of those might be classified more as institutionalists than by their theological perspective, but they at least come from a traditionalist viewpoint.) By contrast, none of the 13 bishops elected now in 2022 could be considered theologically traditionalist.
Due to bishops’ retirements, seven of the 39 U.S. bishops going forward could be considered traditionalist, and even some of them would again be more institutional than traditional in their approach to leadership. At best, that means around 18 percent of the active bishops are traditionalists. If current trends continue and no new traditionalist bishops are elected, that percentage will shrink further, and traditionalists will be grossly underrepresented on the Council of Bishops.
Even more stark is the realization that nearly all the general secretaries of the general boards and agencies of the UM Church reflect a centrist or progressive theology. Traditionalists are underrepresented on the agency staffs and among the agency board members and have been for decades. The same is true in many annual conferences when it comes to district superintendents and conference agency heads and staff.
For the foreseeable future, the traditionalist voice in the UM Church will be a minority voice and not well represented among the denominational leadership. Traditionalist members are not likely to hear their perspective communicated from bishops or general church or annual conference leaders.
Voting Strength
When the jurisdictional delegates were elected in the aftermath of the 2019 General Conference, there was a notable swing toward more progressive delegates being elected, particularly among the clergy. Since then, some of the traditionalist delegates have resigned due to their disaffiliation from the UM Church, further reducing traditionalist voting strength.
The projections made in 2019 were born out by the vote counts at the various jurisdictions. The three progressive resolutions (see page 25 of the link) passed by every jurisdiction obtained over 80 percent support in most cases. The most conservative jurisdiction is the Southeastern Jurisdiction. There, centrists and progressives made up two-thirds of the delegates.
Based on these vote counts, it is likely that the U.S. delegates to the 2024 General Conference will be at least 80 percent centrists and progressives. This would give centrists and progressives a solid majority of the conference if this year’s delegates continue to serve during the General Conference.
If new delegates are elected for the 2024 General Conference, there will be a reduction in U.S. delegates and an increase in African delegates due to changing membership numbers. Unless traditionalists are completely shut out in the U.S., this shift will result in a much narrower margin for centrists and progressives. The wild card here is what would happen in annual conferences that experience high rates of disaffiliation. If those conferences, like Texas, South Georgia, and Alabama-West Florida, shift markedly toward centrist and progressive delegates, that would increase the margin and give centrists and progressives a solid majority at General Conference.
Future Directions of the UM Church
It is abundantly clear from the three resolutions passed by the five jurisdictions that the affirmation of LGBTQ+ persons and lifestyles will be a primary agenda item for the denomination. The Queer Delegates’ Resolution (the official title) affirms that each jurisdiction:
Commits to a future of The United Methodist Church where LGBTQIA+ people will be protected, affirmed, and empowered in the life and ministry of the church in our Jurisdiction, including as laity, ordained clergy, in the episcopacy, and on boards and agencies.
One jurisdiction held a two-hour presentation for all delegates on combatting heterosexism, which affirmed all sexual orientations and gender identities and promoted the acceptance of same-gender relationships and transgender reassignment.
Another priority for the UM Church going forward will be to continue addressing the challenge of racism. Two of the jurisdictions encountered difficult circumstances around bishop elections and nomination of candidates that contributed to a perception that racism had entered into the process. One jurisdiction adjourned into executive closed session to address issues of racism connected to the conference.
The United Methodist Church is the second most white mainline Protestant denomination in the U.S. (94 percent white), following the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. Unfortunately, even a decades-long focus on representation and gender and ethnic diversity in the church’s leadership has not translated into a growing diversity at the grass roots of the church. Nevertheless, the emphasis on diversity continues. This strategy deserves rethinking.
A third priority for the UM Church will be instituting a regionalized system of governance. The Christmas Covenant proposal was overwhelmingly endorsed by all five jurisdictions. This proposal would create the U.S. part of the church as its own regional conference, along with three conferences in Africa, three in Europe, and one in the Philippines. Each regional conference would have broad powers to create its own rules and standards and adapt the Book of Discipline to fit the context and opinions of that region. The driving force behind this proposal is to allow the U.S. and Western European parts of the church to affirm LGBTQ+ relationships and lifestyles, while allowing Africa and perhaps the Philippines to maintain their more traditional understandings of marriage and sexuality. (I have written a critique of this proposal.) Although there may be a majority of delegates supporting this proposal, it will not have the two-thirds vote needed to pass General Conference unless the African delegates can be persuaded to support it. African leaders have previously said they could not remain in a church that endorsed same-sex relationships, even if they themselves were not forced to join in that endorsement. African delegates and members have the numbers single-handedly to block regionalization if they do not support it.
A fourth priority for the UM Church going forward will be a realignment of conference boundaries. Due to the disaffiliation of 10-20 percent of United Methodist members and churches, some annual conferences will become too small to be sustainable. There will likely be mergers and consolidation of some annual conferences. The jurisdictions recognized this reality by not filling all the vacant bishop positions. There will be seven episcopal areas with no resident bishop, with those areas being covered by nearby bishops (three in Northeast and two each in Southeast and South Central; additional vacancies will occur in North Central in 2024 due to episcopal retirements). Some annual conferences may remain intact but share a bishop with an adjacent annual conference.
There is also a working group studying the possibility of revising or eliminating the jurisdictional system altogether, which came up during floor debate in some of the jurisdictional conferences. The jurisdictions are a holdover from a racist past, having been formed in the 1939 Methodist Church merger of North and South, which also created a separate jurisdiction for Black Methodist congregations and clergy. That separate jurisdiction was eliminated in the 1968 United Methodist merger, but the regional jurisdictions remain and have fostered regional differences in the church that led to disunity. Changes to the jurisdictional system will require a two-thirds vote to amend the church’s Constitution.
Given these four priorities, two of which would entail major structural changes, it is questionable whether denominational leaders will have the bandwidth or energy to pursue essential components like evangelism, church revitalization, caring for the poor, church planting, and cross-cultural ministry. Local churches will be expected to assume primary responsibility for these areas, and they may or may not be equipped to do so.
The 2022 jurisdictional conferences provided an illuminating look at the current reality of the UM Church in the U.S., as well as some of the potential directions the denomination might take into the future. In the words of Jesus, “Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand!” (Matthew 11:15).
This article was originally published by Firebrand and is reprinted with permission. The full article may be read at: Firebrandmag.com.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and is the vice president of Good News.
