Why Disaffiliating Churches Should Not Be Charged for Their Property

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 But to be credible, it would be better to deploy one that’s not a half-century out of date.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.

Charting a New Direction for the UMC (Part II)

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.

Charting a New Direction for the UMC (Part 1)

by Steve | Nov 18, 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 first of two surveying that question.

More Diversity

According to news reports, this group of elected bishops represents several “firsts,” recognizing the expanding ethnic diversity of the Council of Bishops. David Wilson is the first Native American bishop in the UM Church. Carlo A. Rapanut is the first Filipino American bishop. Hector A. Burgos-Nuñez is the first Hispanic/Latino bishop in the Northeastern Jurisdiction. Delores “Dee” Williamston is the first Black woman bishop in the South Central Jurisdiction. Cedrick D. Bridgeforth is the first openly gay Black male bishop. (Karen Oliveto was the first openly gay female bishop, elected in 2016.)

The diversity, however, did not extend to electing one single theological traditionalist or conservative bishop.

Expanding the “Big Tent” Leftward

The theological diversity of the newly elected bishops seems to run only in a more progressive direction. For example, all 13 bishops favor changing the language of the Book of Discipline’s definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They would endorse the ordination of practicing gay and lesbian pastors and support the ability of pastors to perform same-sex weddings.

In other words, the entire slate of new bishops made it clear that they reject the United Methodist consensus on marriage and sexuality for the past 40 years of Christian “conferencing” at General Conference – including the 2019 gathering in St. Louis that was supposed to resolve our dispute.

However, the most eye-opening theological expansion was the statement by Kennetha Bigham-Tsai, from the North Central Jurisdiction, who was the first of the 13 elected. In a mystifying answer to a question during her candidacy interviews, she stated, “It is not important that we agree on who Christ is. … God became flesh, but not particular flesh. There’s no particularity around that. God became incarnate in a culture, but not one culture. There is mystery and wideness and openness and diversity in who Christ is and who God is, so that every living human being has a way to touch God, to connect with God, to have a relationship with God in Christ.”

This picture brings to mind the parable of the blind men and the elephant, which originated in India centuries before Christ. In the parable, seven blind men who have never seen an elephant touch different parts of the elephant’s body (leg, tail, side, tusk) and come away with very different understandings of what an elephant is like. It seems like Bigham-Tsai is saying that Jesus Christ is different things to different people, so that each person has a way of connecting with Jesus.

It is true that Jesus meets each of us where we are in a way that opens our ability to receive him as our Savior and Lord. That is the essence of prevenient grace. However, the radical pessimism about our ability to have a unified understanding of Jesus’ basic identity is unwarranted and contrary to an orthodox understanding of Christianity.

When Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do you say I am?” Peter responded, “You are the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:15-16). Jesus blessed Peter for his understanding that had been revealed to him by the Father, thus affirming Peter’s statement. We ought to be able at least to have a common understanding that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son.

Our United Methodist doctrinal standards go into much greater detail about who Jesus is.

The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided; whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men (Articles of Religion, Article II).

Is Bigham-Tsai really saying that it is not important for United Methodists to agree with our doctrinal standards’ shared understanding of who Jesus is?

Given Article II’s statements, it is difficult to understand how a United Methodist bishop could state that God was not incarnate in “particular flesh.” How can it be said that “God became incarnate in a culture, but not one culture?” God was born of a virgin Jewish mother in Bethlehem at a known historical time. He lived and died as a practicing, devout Jew. His message and his life were in continuity with the Jewish Old Testament and in fulfillment of it. All of this took place within one person in one particular culture.

Yes, Jesus has relevance to every person and every culture, but God’s presence was made manifest in the particularity of one person and one culture. Without that bedrock understanding, we have no historical basis for interpreting the “Christ event” or its application to our own lives and culture.

Bigham-Tsai’s statements illustrate very well what is meant by the “big tent” approach to United Methodism. It gives the impression that United Methodist leaders do not view the doctrinal standards as actual standards, but suggestions or guidelines, to be disregarded whenever they do not “make sense” or are judged to be not helpful.

The Book of Discipline is very specific about the role of a bishop:

To lead and oversee the spiritual and temporal affairs of The United Methodist Church which confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and particularly to lead the Church in its mission of witness and service in the world. … To guard, transmit, teach, and proclaim, corporately and individually, the apostolic faith as it is expressed in Scripture and tradition, and, as they are led and endowed by the Spirit, to interpret that faith evangelically and prophetically.

By its very nature, this “big tent” excludes traditionalists who believe there are certain doctrinal propositions that are essential to Christianity. We believe the faith defined in the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith. Without these doctrinal understandings, we do not have Christianity, but some other religion loosely based on Christianity.

Delegates at the North Central Jurisdictional Conference were aware of these doctrinal questions regarding Bigham-Tsai, yet elected her the first bishop in this year’s class. That can be viewed either as an indifference to doctrine or the adoption of a doctrine-less United Methodism. In any case, it speaks volumes about the theological direction of the future United Methodist Church.

Expanded Disobedience

To great fanfare, the Western Jurisdiction elected a gay man who recently married his male partner. This election carries on the precedent the same jurisdiction set by electing Karen Oliveto as bishop in 2016, who is married to another woman. Cedric Bridgeforth was elected even though the Judicial Council ruled that Oliveto’s consecration was contrary to church law and that her standing as a clergyperson must be brought up for judicial review (it never was).

Additionally, the Northeastern Jurisdiction came close to electing as bishop another gay man married to his male partner, Jay Williams. At one point, Williams was within 20 votes of having enough to be elected.

It appears that, for many delegates, the requirements of the Discipline are to be disregarded when they do not line up with one’s ideological commitments. One episcopal candidate made the comment that change comes from the bottom up, and that rules are often disregarded by the grass roots before they are changed formally by the legislative body.

The expanded disobedience is also seen in the fact that all five jurisdictions passed a resolution that affirms a moratorium on complaints surrounding sexual orientation, discourages pursuing complaints against clergy around their sexual activity or against pastors who officiate LGBTQIA+ weddings, and supports the election of bishops who uphold these aspirations.

Questions of law were asked in at least two of the jurisdictions hoping the Judicial Council will declare the resolution null and void because it encourages disobedience to the Discipline. No matter what the Judicial Council rules, the resolution indicates the overwhelming sentiment of U.S. delegates, as well as their disregard for what the General Conference has enacted in the Discipline. (The text of this resolution and two other important ones may be read at the Northeastern Jurisdiction Conference report, starting on page 25.)

In the next Perspective, we will project the implications the jurisdictional conferences have for the future of United Methodism and the role of traditionalists.

New wave of United Methodist bishops elected

by Steve | Nov 7, 2022 | In the News

United Methodist News –

After electing 13 new bishops during their November 2-5 meetings, the denomination’s five U.S. jurisdictional conferences announced episcopal assignments effective January 1.

Jurisdictional leaders recommended electing 14 new bishops; however, the Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference voted to suspend its rules and delay the election of a second bishop until the 2024 jurisdictional conference.

The elections bring the number of active U.S. bishops to 39, but the U.S. currently has 46 episcopal areas. Twenty United Methodist bishops in the U.S. will have retired between 2021 and the end of this year.

Each jurisdiction’s college of bishops and committee on the episcopacy arrange coverage of the remaining episcopal areas, with some assigning bishops to serve more than one episcopal area as 16 bishops have done over the last two years with General Conference postponed by the pandemic.

 Southeastern Jurisdiction

The Rev. Tom Berlin speaks to delegates at the Southeastern Jurisdictional Conference meeting in Lake Junaluska, N.C. Photo by Ben Smith.

The Rev. Thomas M. Berlin, lead pastor of Floris United Methodist Church in Herndon, Virginia. He has been assigned to Florida.

Berlin was the endorsed candidate of the Virginia Conference. He grew up at Braddock Street United Methodist Church in Winchester, Virginia. After graduating from Virginia Tech, he earned his Master of Divinity degree from United Methodist Candler School of Theology in Atlanta and entered ordained ministry in Virginia in 1988. He subsequently was appointed pastor of the Brucetown-Welltown Charge in Frederick County, followed by appointment as pastor of Toms Brook United Methodist Church in Toms Brook.

Since 1997, he has been lead pastor of Floris United Methodist Church in suburban Washington. The congregation has grown from an average worship attendance of 400 when he began his appointment to 1,200 before the pandemic. Under Berlin’s leadership, the church also launched two satellite campuses: Restoration Reston and Restoration Loudon. The congregation’s combined online and in-person attendance is now around 1,000. The church also has been in partnership with the Sierra Leone Conference since 2000.

The Rev. Robin Dease thanks the delegates of the Southeastern Jurisdictional Conference upon her election as a bishop. Photo by Matt Brodie.

The Rev. Robin Dease, a pastor and former district superintendent in the South Carolina Conference. She has been assigned to North Georgia.

Dease has served as senior pastor of St. Andrew By-The-Sea United Methodist Church in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, since 2021. She joined the South Carolina Conference in 1992 and was ordained an elder in 2001. She has served as pastor of Wesley United Methodist Church in Johns Island, John Wesley United Methodist Church in Greenville, and St. Andrew By-The-Sea United Methodist Church in Hilton Head. She also has served as superintendent of the Hartsville District, and in 2012, was interim chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religion at Claflin.

Her appointment as senior pastor at St. Andrew By-The-Sea made her the first African-American woman to serve as lead pastor of a historically white United Methodist church in South Carolina.

The Rev. Connie Shelton thanks the delegates of the Southeastern Jurisdictional Conference Her husband, the Rev. Joey Shelton, stands behind her. Photo by Ben Smith, UM News.

The Rev. Connie Mitchell Shelton, district superintendent in the Mississippi Conference. She has been assigned to North Carolina.

Raised in the Southern Baptist tradition in her native Mississippi, she later found that Methodist theology resonated in her life. She subsequently joined Oak Grove United Methodist Church in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, where she and her husband, Joey, served as volunteer lay youth directors. Eventually, both she and her husband discerned a call to full-time ordained ministry.

She has a bachelor’s degree in radio, television and film and a master’s in public relations, both from the University of Southern Mississippi. She and her husband moved to Durham, North Carolina, to study at Duke Divinity School.

Since 2015, she has been superintendent and missional strategist of the East Jackson District in the Mississippi Conference. Since July, she also has served on a team of four superintendents overseeing the Hattiesburg District.

She previously served as director of connectional ministries and communications for the Mississippi Conference. Before that, she served in appointments at both rural and urban United Methodist churches. She also was executive director of “The United Methodist Hour” television and radio broadcast, which reached across the Southeastern United States.

North Central Jurisdiction

The Rev. Kennetha Bigham-Tsai (right) and her husband, Kee, greet delegates at the North Central Jurisdictional Conference following her election as bishop. Photo courtesy of NCJ Communications.

The Rev. Kennetha Bigham-Tsai, chief connectional ministries officer for the Connectional Table. She has been assigned to Iowa.

Since 2018, Bigham-Tsai has served as the chief connectional ministries officer for the Connectional Table, which discerns and articulates the vision of The United Methodist Church and helps determine how finances are used for worldwide connectional mission. She has been a member of the Connectional Table since 2012.

She has been actively involved as a delegate from the Michigan Conference at General Conference and North Central Jurisdictional Conference since 2012. She was co-chair of the 2022 delegation as a clergy delegate. She also serves as secretary of the North Central Jurisdiction Committee on the Episcopacy.

As superintendent of the Lansing District of the Michigan Conference for five years, from 2013 to 2018. Ordained as a United Methodist elder in 2009, Bigham-Tsai served congregations in Portage and East Lansing, Michigan.

The Rev. Lanette Plambeck receives her episcopal pin following her election to at the North Central Jurisdictional Conference. Photo by Kaitlyn Winders Photography.

The Rev. Lanette Plambeck, assistant to the bishop and director of clergy and leadership excellence in the Iowa Conference. She has been assigned to Dakotas-Minnesota.

Ordained an elder in the Iowa Conference in 2005, Plambeck earned her B.A. from Morningside University in religious studies and political science. After serving as an intelligence analyst in the Army, she worked as an executive and therapist for person-centered agencies. In 2001 she completed her master of divinity degree with an emphasis on evangelism at Saint Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, then received a doctor of ministry in church leadership excellence in 2013 from Wesley Theological Seminary.

Before being on staff at the Iowa Conference, Plambeck was the lead pastor for Broadway United Methodist Church in Council Bluffs, First United Methodist in Atlantic, Manning United Methodist Church in Manning and Emmanuel United Methodist Church in Granger, all in Iowa. She also served as the chaplain at Morningside University.

The Rev. Dan Schwerin reacts to being elected bishop Nov. 3 at the North Central Jurisdictional Conference. Photo by Lisa Wink.

The Rev. Dan Schwerin, assistant to the bishop for the Wisconsin Conference. He has been assigned to North Illinois.

Schwerin has enjoyed many contexts for pastoral ministry, including urban and rural churches; a new church plant; and a multi-staff downtown setting that became a Reconciling Congregation. He launched non-profits to benefit persons with disabilities, children dealing with grief, persons wanting to help battle generational poverty, and children who desired instruments and music lessons.

In the Wisconsin Conference, he served as the superintendent of two districts. Bishop Jung selected Schwerin to lead a collaborative effort with conference partners to increase racial justice and radical inclusion.

He was elected in 2019 as a delegate to General Conference and the North Central Jurisdiction. He has served on the General Conference Task Force on Funding Patterns in The United Methodist Church and the North Central Jurisdiction’s Episcopacy Committee.

Northeastern Jurisdiction

The Rev. Héctor A. Burgos-Núñez addresses the Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference after being elected bishop. His wife, Jazelis Burgos, is at his side. Photo by the Rev. Thomas Kim, UM News.

The Rev. Héctor A. Burgos-Núñez, the superintendent of the Central District in the Greater New Jersey Conference. He has been assigned to Upper New York.

With his election, he became the first Hispanic/Latino bishop elected in the Northeastern Jurisdiction. Burgos was the endorsed candidate of MARCHA, the Hispanic/Latino caucus of The United Methodist Church.

Burgos has served as superintendent of the Central District since 2019. Prior to that, he served as director of connectional ministries from 2015 to 2019.

He also served as interim executive director, NextGen Ministries, in the Greater New Jersey Conference; director of worship and urban ministries in Greater New Jersey; lead pastor at Oasis United Methodist Church in Pleasantville, New Jersey, from 2009 to 2014, and as associate pastor, First United Methodist Church in Tuckerton and assistant pastor at West Creek United Methodist Church, both in New Jersey.

Western Jurisdiction

The Rev. Carlo A. Rapanut greets delegates at the United Methodist Western Jurisdictional Conference, after he was elected to the episcopacy. Photo by Patrick Scriven of the Pacific Northwest Conference.

The Rev. Carlo A. Rapanut, assistant to the bishop in the Greater Northwest Episcopal Area. He has been assigned to Desert Southwest.

Rapanut is the first Filipino American bishop in The United Methodist Church, and the first U.S. bishop who was ordained in a central conference – a United Methodist region outside the U.S.

Rapanut is an elder in the Pacific Northwest Conference.

Since 2014 until May this year, he served as co-dean of the Greater Northwest Area bishop’s cabinet and conference superintendent of the Alaska United Methodist Conference. He also was the Alaska Conference’s director of connectional ministries from 2014 until becoming assistant to the bishop. He previously served as pastor of United Methodist Church of Chugiak in Chugiak, Alaska.

Rapanut grew up in Baguio City, Philippines. Before moving to the U.S., he was senior pastor of Baguio City First United Methodist Church and later assistant to now-retired Bishop Benjamin A. Justo.

The Rev. Cedrick Bridgeforth addresses the delegates, guests and his new episcopal colleagues, shortly after his election. His husband, Christopher Hucks-Ortiz, stands at his side. Photo by Patrick Scriven of the Pacific Northwest Conference .

The Rev. Cedrick D. Bridgeforth, director of innovation and communication in the California-Pacific Conference. He has been assigned to Greater Northwest.

Bridgeforth becomes the first openly gay African-American man to be elected a bishop in The United Methodist Church.

An elder in the California-Pacific Conference, he has directed its office of innovation and communications since 2021. He previously has served as lead pastor of Grace United Methodist Church, a historically Black congregation in Los Angeles, and before that as lead pastor of Santa Ana United Methodist Church, a multi-ethnic congregation. During that time, he was also director of academic programs and outreach for the Ecumenical Center for Black Church Studies at the University of La Verne.

He also served as a district superintendent in the California-Pacific Conference from 2008 to 2015 and cabinet dean from 2011 to 2015.

Bridgeforth has written books on leadership and prayer. In 2021, he published his memoir, “Alabama Grandson: A Black, Gay Minister’s Passage Out of Hiding.”

A native of Decatur, Alabama, Bridgeforth is a U.S. Air Force veteran.

The Rev. Dottie Escobedo-Frank, a United Methodist elder in the Desert Southwest Conference, is accompanied to the podium by young people from MARCHA West, honoring her roots in the Hispanic/Latino community. Photo by Patrick Scriven of the Pacific Northwest Conference.

The Rev. Dottie Escobedo-Frank, senior pastor of Paradise Valley United Methodist Church in Paradise Valley, Arizona. She has been assigned to California-Pacific.

Escobedo-Frank will be the Western jurisdiction’s third Hispanic bishop,

Escobedo-Frank, an elder in the Desert Southwest Conference, she has served appointments as pastor to churches ranging from the small and rural to the big and urban. For three years, she also was an associate pastor at an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America megachurch in Glendale, Arizona.

She also has experience as a district superintendent based in Tucson and dean of the bishop’s cabinet. She served twice as Hispanic Ministries chair in the Desert Southwest Conference.

She also is a prolific writer, publishing seven books about church life and church seasons with Abingdon Press, an imprint of the United Methodist Publishing House.

South Central Jurisdiction

The Rev. Delores “Dee” Williamston acknowledges applause after her election to the United Methodist Episcopacy at the South Central Jurisdictional Conference. Photo by Sam Hodges, UM News.

The Rev. Delores “Dee” Williamston, director of clergy excellence and assistant to the bishop of the Great Plains Conference. She has been assigned to Louisiana.

Williamston is the first Black female bishop for the South Central Jurisdiction. She has been assistant to the bishop and director of clergy excellence at the Great Plains Conference since 2021. Prior to that, she spent seven years as a district superintendent in the Great Plains.

She has a bachelor of science in management and Christian ethics from Manhattan Christian College; a master of divinity from Saint Paul School of Theology, with a specialization in evangelism and Black church studies; and is scheduled to receive a doctor of ministry degree in transformational leadership in improvisational ministry from Phillips Theological Seminary in May 2023.

Williamston is a 22-year veteran of the Kansas Army National Guard, rising to sergeant first class, and has also worked for the U.S. Property and Fiscal Office, State of Kansas food stamp department, American Federation for Television and Radio Artists, and a New York law firm.

The Rev. David Wilson, the first Native American United Methodist bishop, accepts congratulations after his election to the episcopacy at the South Central Jurisdictional Conference. Photo by Sam Hodges, UM News.

The Rev. David Wilson, assistant to the bishop of the Oklahoma and Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference. He has been assigned to Great Plains.

Wilson became the denomination’s first Native American bishop.

Wilson has been the assistant to the bishop for the Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference since 2021, following 19 years as a conference superintendent. He was lead coordinator for the North Oklahoma City Native American Ministry for eight years, following eight years as a pastor of a church in Norman, Oklahoma. He served seven years as director of promotions/interpretations for the Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference, after being pastor of a church in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, and campus minister for the Native American Campus Ministry program at Northeastern State University.

He received an undergraduate degree in mass communications from Oklahoma City University, a master’s degree in divinity from Phillips Theological Seminary in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and an honorary doctorate in humane letters from Bacone College in Muskogee, Oklahoma.

The Rev. Laura Merrill accepts congratulations from delegates at the Nov. 2 United Methodist South Central Jurisdictional Conference. Photo by Sam Hodges, UM News.

The Rev. Laura Merrill, Central District superintendent for the Rio Texas Conference. She has been assigned to Arkansas.

Prior to her current position, she was assistant to the bishop and director of clergy excellence for Rio Texas. A former church secretary, she served as assistant to the dean and director of communications for Candler School of Theology at Emory University before becoming associate pastor at a church in Victoria, then pastor of churches in Los Fresnos and Wimberley.

Merrill also served as a missionary in Chile for the Desert Southwest Conference.

She received a bachelor’s degree in international studies from Southwestern University in 1984, and a master’s in divinity from Candler in 1995.

A third-generation United Methodist pastor, she has two children.

This story was adapted from the UM News reporting. To read UM News’ full coverage, click HERE. Top photo: Newly elected United Methodist bishops David Wilson (third from left, wearing blue jacket), Laura Merrill (wearing green print jacket) and Delores “Dee” Williamston (second from right) are joined by other bishops and church leaders as they pray after being elected during the South Central Jurisdictional Conference. Photo courtesy of the Great Plains Conference.

NEW EPISCOPAL ASSIGNMENTS

Here are the assignments, by conference.

North Central Jurisdiction 

Dakotas-Minnesota: Bishop Lanette Plambeck

Ohio East: Bishop Tracy S. Malone

Illinois Great Rivers: Bishop Frank J. Beard

Indiana: Bishop Julius C. Trimble

Iowa Area: Bishop Kennetha Bigham-Tsai

Michigan Area: Bishop David A. Bard

Northern Illinois: Bishop Dan Schwerin

Ohio West: Bishop Gregory V. Palmer

Wisconsin: Bishop Hee-Soo Jung

The North Central Jurisdiction includes the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin.

Northeastern Jurisdiction

Baltimore-Washington and Peninsula-Delaware: Bishop LaTrelle Easterling

Eastern Pennsylvania and Greater New Jersey: Bishop John R. Schol

New York: Bishop Thomas J. Bickerton

Susquehanna: Bishops Sandra L. Steiner Ball and Cynthia Moore-Koikoi

Upper New York:  Bishop Héctor A. Burgos-Núñez

West Virginia: Bishop Sandra L. Steiner Ball

Western Pennsylvania: Bishop Cynthia Moore-Koikoi

*New England: A new servant leadership coverage model will be revealed later, covered by the college of bishops.

The Northeastern Jurisdiction includes the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia.

South Central Jurisdiction

Arkansas: Bishop Laura Merrill

Areas of North Texas and Central Texas: Bishop Ruben Saenz Jr.

Great Plains: Bishop David Wilson

Louisiana: Bishop Delores “Dee” Williamston

Missouri: Bishop Robert “Bob” Farr

Oklahoma, Oklahoma Indian Missionary: Bishop James G. “Jimmy” Nunn

Rio Texas: Bishop Robert C. Schnase

Texas: Bishop Cynthia Fierro Harvey

*Schnase will provide coverage for the New Mexico Conference and Nunn for the Northwest Texas Conference, as they have been doing.

The South Central Jurisdiction includes the states of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.

Southeastern Jurisdiction

Alabama-West Florida and South Georgia: Bishop David Graves

Florida: Bishop Thomas M. “Tom” Berlin

Holston and North Alabama: Bishop Debra Wallace-Padgett

Kentucky and Central Appalachian Missionary: Bishop Leonard Fairley

Mississippi: Bishop Sharma Lewis

North Carolina: Bishop Connie Mitchell Shelton

North Georgia: Bishop Robin Dease

South Carolina: Bishop L. Jonathan Holston

Tennessee-Western Kentucky: Bishop William “Bill” McAlilly

Virginia: Bishop Sue Haupert-Johnson

Western North Carolina: Bishop Kenneth Carter

The Southeastern Jurisdiction includes the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

Western Jurisdiction

California-Nevada: Bishop Minerva Carcaño

California-Pacific: Bishop Dottie Escobedo-Frank

Desert Southwest: Bishop Carlo A. Rapanut

Greater Northwest: Bishop Cedrick Bridgeforth

Mountain Sky: Bishop Karen Oliveto

The Western Jurisdiction includes the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.