by Steve | Sep 7, 2022 | Sept-Oct 2022
By B.J. Funk
The Beatles released a song in 1966 that spoke of loneliness: Ah, look at all the lonely people/ Where do they all come from?/ All the lonely people/ Where do they all belong?
Are you plagued with periods of loneliness? Do you feel sometimes that you cannot go on another day because life has lost its meaning? Has your best friend died, your companion walked away, and you are left with unbearable darkness? You are not by yourself.
It’s not just an elderly father or mother who is lonely. Not just the widow or widower. The rich and the famous are lonely. The popular and unpopular. Seventies rock star Janis Joplin had the world at her feet, but just before she took her own life with an overdose of heroin in a Los Angeles apartment, she said to her friend, “After I come off the stage, all I do is sit around and watch television. I am so very lonely.”
The movie, Judy, brilliantly played by Rene Zellweger, vividly shows the unhappy life of Judy Garland who died at age 47 from an accidental barbiturate overdose. The tabloids made much of her suicide attempts, addiction to uppers and downers, alcoholism, bankruptcy, a string of heartbreaking marriages, and mental health issues. She was so popular but so lonely. She once tearfully asked this question. “If I am a legend, then why am I so lonely?”
Henry David Thoreau reminds us that being in a crowd does not change our feelings of loneliness. He wrote, “A city is a place where hundreds of people are lonely together.”
Kay Arthur gives us of a beautiful antidote to loneliness. “Snuggle in God’s arms. When you are hurting, when you feel lonely, left out. Let him cradle you, comfort you, and reassure you of his all-sufficient love.”
Human beings are made for relationships. The movie, Castaway, with Tom Hanks vividly points to our need for companionship. Hanks, stranded on an uninhabited island, found a volleyball in a Fed Ex package, and he made this volleyball his friend. He named him Wilson from the brand name, and Wilson served as Hanks’ only friend for over four years until he was rescued. No movie shows the necessity of having just one good friend more than Castaway. It is doubtful if Hanks’ character would have made it without Wilson. Being made for relationships, when there are none we suffer. We hurt. We feel left out, and loneliness covers us like a thick, dark blanket.
Playwright Thomas Wolfe said, “Don’t think of loneliness as some curious abstraction or rare phenomenon. Loneliness is the central and inevitable fact of human existence.” A website on loneliness tells of the Epidemic of Loneliness. The writer goes on to submit that the crisis of loneliness poses as grave a threat to public health as obesity or substance abuse. It cuts across generations and reaches around the world.
In every Sunday morning service there are some very lonely people. It is the responsibility of the church to try to give answers in a society filled with the disease of loneliness. The answer lies squarely in a dynamic, loving, and life-changing relationship with Jesus Christ. We don’t merely need one more outfit, or to spend a lot of money, or go to party after party to fill our lonely needs. Those answers will not satisfy permanently. Loneliness can teach us how to walk by faith and not by sight. Allow loneliness to strengthen your faith in Christ. Ask the Lord to teach you during your lonely times and worship him even if you don’t feel like it.
Elisabeth Elliot gives solid advice when she wrote, “Loneliness is a wilderness, but if we can receive it as a gift, accepting it from the kind hand of God and offering it back to him with thanksgiving. It may become a pathway to holiness, to glory and to God himself.”
How can the church help all the lonely people? As God’s ambassadors, we offer them our arms to snuggle in. We cradle them, comfort them and remind them of God’s all sufficient love.
B.J. Funk is Good News’ long-time devotional columnist and author of It’s A Good Day for Grace, available on Amazon.
by Steve | Aug 26, 2022 | In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht
In a newly released decision, the Judicial Council states, “the process in Par. 2548.2 may not be used as a pathway for local churches to disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church.” This decision responds to a May request from the Council of Bishops to rule on whether Par. 2548.2 can be used by local churches to disaffiliate from the UM Church. It comes on the heels of an earlier decision that ruled out the ability of annual conferences to disaffiliate from the UM Church.
Par. 2548.2 would allow an annual conference to transfer the property of a local UM congregation to another evangelical denomination. Several bishops and the leaders of the Wesleyan Covenant Association saw this paragraph as one possible means to facilitate local church disaffiliation in light of the further postponement of General Conference. In fact, Bishop Thomas Bickerton indicated to us in December 2020 his desire to explore ways to implement the Protocol without it being enacted by General Conference. He agreed that Par. 2548.2 might be a vehicle for doing that. (The 2019 General Conference also envisioned Par. 2548.2 as a possible means of disaffiliation when it included that paragraph in the pension provisions it enacted in Par. 1504.23. But the Judicial Council ignored that inconvenient fact.)
A task force within the Council of Bishops began working on disaffiliation through several paragraphs in the Discipline, including Par. 2548. A negotiating team of several bishops and WCA leaders worked for nearly 18 months to try to craft a model agreement and provisions that could allow local churches to use Par. 2548.2 to disaffiliate using the terms of the Protocol as much as possible. In the end, the bishops broke off the negotiations when we could not reach an agreement, deciding instead to use only Par. 2553. The Council of Bishops then filed their request for a declaratory decision on the validity of using Par. 2548.2 as a local church pathway to disaffiliation.
Importantly, this week’s Judicial Council decision does not nullify any church disaffiliations that have taken place, nor does it jeopardize any churches who are currently in the disaffiliation process. Up to now, bishops have been unwilling to use Par. 2548.2 for disaffiliation until there was a Judicial Council ruling, so almost no churches have been using the now-outlawed process.
Also, the Judicial Council ruling does not prevent any local church from disaffiliating from the UM Church and joining the Global Methodist Church. While the Council of Bishops has been given the authority to determine if a certain denomination qualifies under Par. 2548.2, the ruling does NOT give the Council of Bishops the authority to say that the GMC is not a real denomination. The GMC has been formed, is incorporated, has a governing Transitional Council, has a Book of Doctrines and Discipline, and has clergy and congregations who have affiliated with it, the number of which are increasing daily.
This Perspective gets a bit technical, so those not interested in following the argument may skip to the last section to understand the implications. Here are the important points of this new Decision 1449.
Who Must Authorize the Use of Par. 2548.2?
The Judicial Council ruled that any agreement under Par. 2548.2 would involve the Council of Bishops and the leaders of the other denomination (in this case, the Global Methodist Church). This is reasonable, since “The Council of Bishops shall have the authority to enter into ecumenical agreements with other Christian bodies” (Par. 431.1).
Further, any agreement signed by the Council of Bishops would have to be ratified by the General Conference before going into effect. This is a stretch, since the Discipline only requires ratification of “formal ‘full communion’ relationships and permanent membership in ecumenical organizations” (Par. 431.1). The Judicial Council reasoned, however, that an ecumenical agreements involving the transfer of property are “ecumenical relations with churchwide implications and, therefore, by their very nature are ‘matters distinctively connectional’ over which the General Conference has full legislative power under ¶ 16.”
The Judicial Council appears to have an inconsistent understanding of when something is “distinctively connectional” and when it is not. Minimum standards of ordination were ruled to be not “distinctively connectional” in Decision 1366, even though clergy are ordained as clergy of the whole church. Here, though, matters of local church property are deemed to be “distinctively connectional” and require General Conference approval.
This part of the ruling automatically postpones any possible use of Par. 2548.2 until after the 2024 General Conference meeting, which has been the goal of the Council of Bishops all along – to delay the possibilities of disaffiliation as long as possible. (But see the other part of the ruling below that disallows Par. 2548.2 entirely.)
What Qualifies as “Another Evangelical Denomination?”
The Judicial Council ruled that the Council of Bishops is the body that must determine if an entity qualifies as “another evangelical denomination” under Par. 2548.2 to which local church property can be transferred. The Judicial Council thought this was consistent with the fact that the COB is the body empowered to enter into ecumenical relationships. This gives a lot of power to the Council of Bishops without any check or balance. The COB could arbitrarily decide that the GMC does not fit their definition of “another evangelical denomination” and thereby prohibit any ecumenical relationship or transfer of property. And the dissenting opinion by Judicial Council member Dennis Blackwell advocates that “The majority’s ruling invests authority within the Council of Bishops that the General Conference has not given them in the Book of Discipline.” We agree.
A Convoluted Process?
The Judicial Council ruled that Par. 2548.2 is constitutional because it does not violate the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of church government. The General Conference may confer legislative “authority on an annual conference to enforce the transfer of church property. However, this annual conference authority is neither unrestricted nor unqualified.” In order for Par. 2548.2 to be executed, an ecumenical agreement must be in place signed by the COB and ratified by General Conference, the local church must request the property transfer, the bishop and a majority of district superintendents, as well as the district board of building and location, must agree, and the annual conference must approve by majority vote. Unless all these conditions are satisfied, Par. 2548.2 cannot come into use.
This process outlined by the Judicial Council may be legal under church law, but it illustrates one of the terminal maladies of The United Methodist Church. Our denomination has set up a system with so many approvals required as to make changes in the system nearly impossible. There are so many ways to block action from occurring that many times we do not even try. That is why often bishops, district superintendents, and clergy ignore provisions of the Discipline because they are so unwieldy and seem designed to block constructive changes rather than facilitate adaptation to changing environments.
This is why Good News has come to the conclusion that the UM system is not reformable. Reform can be blocked by so many entrenched special interests in so many different ways that it does not even pay to try. We have concluded we are better off starting fresh with a new system that is more permission-giving and offers more flexibility to local churches and annual conferences. When there is basic agreement on our theological framework (as in the GMC), it is unnecessary to impose all kinds of restrictive rules and processes.
A Realistic Option?
The Judicial Council ruled that an ecumenical agreement would have to be in place before any annual conference could consider transferring UM local church property to the other denomination. Since only two such agreements are currently in place – with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the Moravian Church – property transfers could occur only with those two denominations. Any other transfers under Par. 2548.2 would have to wait for the COB to negotiate and sign such an agreement and then have it ratified by General Conference. There is no realistic chance for such an agreement to be put in place with the GMC by 2024. Given the rapidly accumulating hard feelings and resentful atmosphere surrounding this separation, it may be decades before any such agreement could be considered.
The lynchpin question the COB asked of the Judicial Council was whether Par. 2548.2 could be used as a separate process of disaffiliation or termination of a local church’s alignment with the UM Church. The Judicial Council answered a resounding NO. Their reasoning is that Par. 2548.2 addresses the transfer of property, not the transfer of members. As such, “any use or application of Par. 2548.2 to accomplish the disaffiliation of local churches would not only defy logic but also subvert the clearly stated purpose of this disciplinary paragraph.”
Of course, Par. 2553 (the current disaffiliation pathway) does not address the transfer of members, either. It allows for the disaffiliation of a congregation as a corporate unit through the release of the trust clause. It is assumed that the members of the congregation would remain so in their newly independent (or later newly affiliated) relationship, unless specific members requested otherwise. The same could be assumed of Par. 2548.2, that the members would remain with the congregation’s property unless they requested otherwise. But the Judicial Council reasoned otherwise.
The Judicial Council further reasoned that, if Par. 2548.2 provided a disaffiliation pathway, there would have been no need for the 2019 General Conference to pass another one – Par. 2553. This ignores the fact that the existing Par. 2549 on church closure has been used for decades to allow particularly small local congregations to leave the UM Church with their property. The conference would “close” the church and then sell the property back to the congregation for a reasonable amount. It also ignores the fact that Par. 1504.23, also adopted at the 2019 General Conference, lists Par. 2548 and 2549 as ways in which “a local church or charge in the United States changes its relationship to The United Methodist Church.”
Par. 2553 was adopted in order to provide an even clearer pathway for disaffiliation by local churches that could not support the actions of the 2019 General Conference to adopt the Traditional Plan. In other words, it was for congregations that are more progressive. It was never the intent of those who proposed and supported that paragraph that annual conferences could add onerous requirements to the process. It was intended as a smooth, well-defined, reasonable disaffiliation path. Only, churches that are more progressive refused to take that pathway of disaffiliation, leading to the situation where now traditionalist churches are doing so. And some annual conferences are turning a simple process into a much more complicated one and adding requirements that the General Conference delegates never envisioned.
It seems the Judicial Council is penalizing General Conference for trying to do something to clarify processes, while not intending to make other options obsolete. Once again, it shows the impossibility of reforming the UM structure or processes. At every turn, there are individuals and bodies poised to try to block the changes, and the inherently judicially conservative Judicial Council is ready to favor the status quo.
The appeal of using Par. 2548.2 was to circumvent the complexity and the onerous requirements, allow for a different mechanism for handling pension liabilities (such as payment over time), and facilitate the disaffiliation of congregations to be true to their conscience. Instead, some bishops and annual conferences have weaponized the process in an effort to coerce congregations into remaining United Methodist or giving up their property.
Implications
The bottom line is that the Judicial Council has essentially ruled out the use of Par. 2548.2 as a realistic pathway for local congregations to disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church.
That means essentially the only pathway for congregational disaffiliation with their property is Par. 2553. Once that paragraph expires at the end of 2023, there will be no viable disaffiliation pathway out of the UM Church, unless General Conference enacts a new one sometime in 2024.
That means any church that might want to disaffiliate must do so quickly. Some annual conferences have September 1 deadlines for entering the discernment process. Only 15 annual conferences contemplate holding special annual conferences in 2022 to approve disaffiliation. Only a couple annual conferences have said they would schedule special annual conferences late in 2023 to approve disaffiliation.
If a local church does not finish the disaffiliation process in time to be approved by the last annual conference session in 2023, that local church may be unable to disaffiliate at all in the future. As I have written before, there are no guarantees that the 2024 General Conference will pass a new disaffiliation process. Good News hopes it will do so, and we remain committed to working toward that end. At the same time, there is also no guarantee that any new process would be more equitable or less expensive than Par. 2553.
The COB has accomplished its objective of choking off as many avenues for disaffiliation as possible. It is concerning that the COB during the pandemic has appropriated to itself more and more authority. The legislative branch of our church government has been silenced by the continued postponement of General Conference. In its absence for now eight years, the COB has used the Judicial Council to control the direction of the church. In this instance, the Judicial Council decision followed almost exactly the arguments of the COB in their briefs, along with a supportive brief from a conference chancellor. The Judicial Council made almost no reference to any opposing briefs, nor did it engage with the arguments and objections of the opposing briefs. It rubber stamped what the bishops wanted. The loss of the legislative power and the coopting of the judicial power enables the COB to essentially run the church according to its own understanding. This sets up an unhealthy dynamic within the denomination that will not be easy to correct, once life gets back to “normal” with the resumption of General Conference meetings in 2024.
There is a sentiment among some of our church’s bishops and other leaders that disaffiliation itself should not be on the table. The concurring opinion by Judicial Council member Beth Capen states, “The act of disaffiliation is in direct contradiction to this denomination’s long-standing polity of connectionalism. It is an anathema to that connectional cornerstone which distinguishes our denomination from most other Protestant Churches.” If it were up to persons who think this way, there would be no pathway for local churches or annual conferences to disaffiliate at all from The United Methodist Church.
One hopes that this sentiment against any sort of disaffiliation is a minority position in the church. Or at least that people will recognize the practicality of allowing churches that can no longer be part of the UM Church due to objections of conscience to disaffiliate with their property. Coercion should play no role in maintaining institutional United Methodism.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. Photo: Shutterstock.
by Steve | Aug 22, 2022 | In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht
It is important to have accurate information about all the issues surrounding disaffiliation in order to make good decisions. Last week, we explored the information shared by UM Communications in a post called “Is the United Methodist Church really …? (Part I).” We covered the status of our doctrinal standards in United Methodism today, the reality of separation, and whether it is likely that traditionalists will have a respected voice in a post-separation UM Church.
Today’s post deals with issues particularly related to the church’s stance on marriage and human sexuality. You can find this information in Part II of the UM Communications blog series.
Changes to the UM Church’s Stance
The UM Communications piece rightly notes that the advent of separation does not immediately change the policies of The United Methodist Church, which are set by the General Conference. However, as we noted last week with regard to doctrine, the fact that the UM Church has policies on paper does not necessarily mean that those policies are being followed.
Based on their resistance to the actions of the 2019 General Conference reaffirming the church’s traditional teachings, and in keeping with the proposed Protocol moratorium on complaints and charges, some bishops and annual conferences have disregarded the denomination’s stance that marriage is only between one man and one woman. They have allowed (and in some cases explicitly permitted) clergy to perform same-sex weddings and have commissioned or ordained non-celibate gays and lesbians as clergy.
The UM Communications piece maintains that the majority of U.S. annual conferences are not “ignoring or refusing to implement the Discipline’s statements, restrictions, and requirements regarding practicing homosexuals and same-sex weddings.” Following the 2019 General Conference, 26 annual conferences in the U.S. (more than half) passed resolutions repudiating the General Conference actions. Some explicitly stated they would not follow the Discipline, while at least a half-dozen conferences ordained openly gay clergy. The Iowa Conference began explicitly permitting same-sex weddings in January of this year. The Western Jurisdiction bishops publicly stated that they will not “withhold or challenge ordination based on a candidate’s gender identity or sexual orientation,” nor will they “punish clergy who celebrate the marriage of two adults of any gender or sexual orientation.” A number of annual conference boards of ministry have said they will no longer consider a candidate’s sexual orientation or inquire about their relationship status.
The UM Communications piece rightly points out that the Discipline does not prohibit ordination based on “sexual orientation or gender identity.” But the piece fails to reckon with the fact that this language has been used over the years as code for disregarding not only the orientation of a person, but also their practices. Boards of ministry have demonstrated that when they talk about ignoring sexual orientation, they also mean they will ignore whether the candidate is or is not in a same-sex marriage or relationship.
UM Communications points out that bishops do not punish in the complaint process, so they are not ignoring the Discipline. Again, the piece fails to reckon with the fact that bishops control the complaint process, deciding whether to process a complaint or dismiss it.
Whether or not a majority of conferences are now ignoring the Discipline, a significant number are. This has resulted in a de facto change in the denomination’s standards in those conferences.
Will the UM Church “drop all prohibitions related to human sexuality at its next General Conference in 2024?” The UM Communications piece states, “all of these kinds of proposals have come before General Conferences in the past. And all have been defeated, every time. At present, there do not appear to be enough shifts in the makeup of the delegations to the General Conference in 2024 to conclude that any of these proposals will pass.”
As many have noted, the margin for passing the Traditional Plan in 2019 was fairly narrow. The shift of only 28 delegates would have changed the outcome. The election of delegates in 2019 for the 2020 General Conference saw a definite shift, with an increase in progressive delegates elected in the U.S. Whether or not it would have resulted in the 2020 General Conference changing the church’s stance, it would have been a very close vote.
Looking ahead to 2024, it seems likely there will be new elections of delegates. And this time, many traditionalist members of annual conference – both clergy and lay – will be missing because they have disaffiliated. This could result in the election of a much more progressive delegation in the U.S. Maintaining the current stance of the church is not as assured an outcome as UM Communications seems to think.
Drag Queen Clergy?
UM Communications states that the UM Church is not ordaining drag queens. This comes from a situation in the Vermillion River District of the Illinois Great Rivers Conference, where the district committee on ministry voted unanimously to certify a candidate for ordained ministry who identifies as a non-practicing homosexual but preaches under the drag name Ms. Penny Cost for the purpose of evangelizing people of many sexual and gender identities.
UM Communications accurately notes there is no prohibition in the Discipline against a person performing in drag from being considered for ordained ministry. One might question the wisdom of having a candidate for ministry who does so, independently of whether or not it is prohibited in the Discipline.
The piece asserts that certification as a candidate is the beginning step of what normally is a five to eight-year process toward ordination. It states that, until a person is commissioned by a ¾ vote of the clergy session of an annual conference, they cannot preside at sacraments or at weddings. However, a district committee can license a candidate as a local pastor, which does not require the approval of the clergy session. Licensed local pastors can preside at sacraments and weddings in the church they serve.
Given the previous unanimous support of the district committee, it seems likely that this candidate who preaches in drag could be appointed to serve a church as a licensed local pastor, while continuing the process toward ordination.
Worship of a “Queer God?”
The UM Communications piece brings up an incident at Duke Divinity School, one of the official United Methodist seminaries. A student group at the seminary led a Pride worship service in the chapel affirming LGBTQ+ identities and practices and identifying God as “queer” or “strange one, fabulous one, fluid, and ever-becoming one.” According to the article, one participant stated that God is “drag queen, and transman, and gender-fluid.”
The piece notes that a student-led service in the chapel does not necessarily reflect the official position of the seminary or of the UM Church. It identifies one of the students named in the article as a candidate for United Methodist ministry. However, two other students in the article also interned at Duke Memorial UM Church.
The issue here is not that one worship service represents the official teaching of a particular seminary. Rather, this is one example of how many official United Methodist seminaries have a climate of advocacy for affirming LGBTQ+ identities and practices that often morphs into a re-imagining or distortion of our understanding of God in line with gay categories. “Queer theology” is an academic discipline found at some of our seminaries that seeks to reinterpret Christian faith in light of the experiences of gay and gender non-binary people. “Pride” worship services have become commonplace at the various seminaries.
Students preparing for ministry in the UM Church are often enculturated into the affirmation of LGBTQ+ identities. Many of them support having non-celibate gays and lesbians in ordained ministry and the ability to perform same-sex weddings. These students become pastors who go into their churches as advocates for LGBTQ+ affirmation. The unanimous support of the Vermillion River District committee for a gay man preaching in drag is evidence for this viewpoint. After 20-30 years of this kind of education in many of our seminaries, the result is a clergy that is much more progressive than the laity of our church. These clergy have led their congregations into a more affirming stance, leading to annual conferences that have become more affirming, and eventually to the anticipated change in our denominational policies regarding the definition of marriage and the qualifications for ordination.
Traditionalist United Methodists see this trajectory as an indication that the church is on the wrong track. We do not support this direction of the church, and it is one of the reasons we believe separation is a necessary option for congregations and clergy. If the bus is headed toward a destination where you do not want to go, it may be time to get off the bus.
Our desire is not to mischaracterize The United Methodist Church or mislead anyone seeking to understand the likely futures represented by the options available. If one wants to belong to a denomination that affirms the 3,000-year-old understanding of marriage as between man and woman, the Global Methodist Church would be a likely option. If one wants to belong to a church that is increasingly affirming of LGBTQ+ identities and relationships, The United Methodist Church would be a likely option.
The underlying message of the official communications from the denomination seems to be: “nothing is going to change; traditionalists are welcome in the UM Church; there is no need to push a decision now; wait until after General Conference 2024.” Unfortunately, as I explained last week, the deadline for disaffiliation right now is December 31, 2023. It is uncertain what the 2024 General Conference will do when it comes to pathways for congregations or conferences to disaffiliate. We hope they will enact a fair and equitable pathway, but there is no guarantee. And for many traditionalists, waiting two more years will only further weaken their congregation and delay their ability to focus single-mindedly on the mission of their church.
There is no need to demean or distort what others stand for. Rather, it should be in the interest of all to accurately portray the directions taken by various denominational alternatives. These two blog posts have hopefully clarified where traditionalists stand vis-à-vis the direction that United Methodism is taking. Individuals and congregations can weigh their options in light of the available information and choose their future as the Lord leads.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. Photo: Shutterstock.
by Steve | Aug 16, 2022 | In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht
Recently, United Methodist News Service, along with several bishops, has issued articles aimed at correcting what they perceive to be misinformation being shared about what The United Methodist Church will become in the future. Unfortunately, some of what they share about perceived misinformation is itself misinformed.
It is understandable that people get caught up in the emotions of conflict and separation. This is a fraught time within our denomination. The future ministry, and in some cases even existence, of congregations and clergy are being decided during the next 18 months. People have deep feelings about their faith and relationship with Jesus Christ, as well as about their church, which has been a spiritual home for them for decades in many cases. Some laity feel betrayed by a denomination that has changed beyond their recognition and in some ways has “left” them. Other laity feel betrayed by the fact that they have not been made aware of the deep theological conflict in our denomination and are just now finding out that the church is experiencing separation. Other laity feel betrayed by the fact that some congregations, laity, and clergy can no longer in good conscience be part of The United Methodist Church.
Given the emotions and stakes involved, it is understandable that some people get the facts wrong or exaggerate what they perceive about those with whom they disagree. In such a time as this, it is important to focus on the facts and not allow our feelings to carry us into the realm of speculation and character assassination. This temptation can afflict people on all sides of the current divide in our church. Though we disagree and are not afraid to speak clearly about that disagreement, we should still speak and act in love toward all people, including those with whom we disagree.
With that in mind, several points of misinformation need to be corrected.
A Matter of Doctrine
Both the UM News piece and a letter from Bishop Michael McKee (North Texas) allege that some traditionalists are saying the UM Church “is about to alter its doctrine to deny the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or salvation through Christ alone.” I know of no reputable traditionalist spokesperson who is making this charge. To be clear, it is very difficult (some would say impossible) to change the official doctrinal standards of The United Methodist Church. It requires a two-thirds vote of the General Conference and a three-fourths vote of all annual conference members (see Par. 59 of the Discipline).
The issue for traditionalists is not whether the denomination changes its official doctrinal standards. It’s whether those doctrinal standards are worth the paper they are written on. Can doctrinal standards be standards if they are not enforced?
Since at least the late 1990’s, there have been bishops, seminary professors, and clergy in the UM Church who have written and taught doctrine contrary to the doctrines contained in our standards. They have done so openly and publicly, yet without any accountability or consequences. To be clear, those teaching such non-Methodist doctrines are a minority in the church. Yet, where doctrinal standards are not enforced, they do not matter.
The flip side of this question is the acknowledgement that in some annual conferences it is impossible for someone who affirms unquestioningly all the Methodist doctrines to be approved for ordination. They are thought to be too “fundamentalist” and not sufficiently “pluralist” or open to new ideas. In this case, the doctrinal standards function almost in reverse. Rather than insisting a candidate for ministry affirm all our doctrines, a board of ministry sometimes penalizes someone who does affirm them.
So the issue is not whether our doctrines change on paper. The issue is whether our doctrines change in practice, and whether clergy are held to our doctrinal standards. Unquestionably, the doctrinal standards in our denomination do not function as such, or they only function in some annual conferences or only inconsistently. This is unlikely to change in a future UM Church.
Split or Splinter – a Rose by Any Other Name
The UM News piece maintains that the UM Church is not splitting. They define “splitting” as “a negotiated agreement within the denomination to divide assets and resources.” Under that definition, adoption of the Protocol would have foster a split in the denomination.
Instead, they say the UM Church is “splintering.” “What is happening is that some traditionalist leaders have decided to create their own denomination (the Global Methodist Church). Leaders of that denomination and other unofficial advocacy groups … are encouraging like-minded United Methodist congregations and clergy to disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church and join their denomination instead.”
This is a distinction without a difference. We prefer to use the term “separation” to describe what is happening in the church. People of different theological perspectives are separating from one another, which involves some congregations and clergy disaffiliating from the denomination.
Whether it is separation, splitting, splintering, or dividing, The United Methodist Church is undergoing profound change through the withdrawal of congregations, lay members, and clergy. Whether we want such an occurrence to take place or not, it is happening. This puts congregations in the position of having to make a decision to either join those who are disaffiliating or to remain part of the UM Church in order to be faithful to their understanding of Methodism.
Room for Traditionalists?
UM News asks, “Is the UMC really asking traditionalists to leave the denomination?” Of course, no traditionalists are alleging that the UM Church wants traditionalists to leave. UM leaders and bishops are trying very hard to persuade traditionalists to stay in the denomination.
The issue is better put in Bishop McKee’s letter that says, “Clergy and laity alike have voiced that they have heard there will not be a place for traditionalists in The United Methodist Church moving forward and that their only option is to depart the denomination.” The Council of Bishops and others have worked hard to articulate that traditionalists will be welcome in the UM Church in the future. Their narrative document states, “We cannot be a traditional church or a progressive church or a centrist church. … All of our members, clergy, local churches, and annual conferences will continue to have a home in the future United Methodist Church, whether they consider themselves liberal, evangelical, progressive, traditionalist, middle of the road, conservative, centrist, or something else.”
For traditionalists to remain in the UM Church is a legitimate choice, one that at least some traditionalists will make.
The real question is whether a traditional theological voice and presence will be respected and welcome in a future UM Church. The fact is that no one can say for sure. What we do know is that the traditional voice is currently not respected or welcome in some parts of the church.
A pastor of youth ministry at a large, traditionalist UM congregation recently attended a meeting of youth ministry leaders from many large UM congregations across the country. In visioning for the future of youth ministry in the UM Church, these leaders overwhelmingly agreed that they could no longer use masculine pronouns for God and they could not address God as Father. They resolved not to speak of the Kingdom of God, using instead the term kin-dom of God. And they would use preferred pronouns for people in accommodating the trend towards transgenderism and non-binary gender identity.
The traditionalist youth ministry leader felt like a fish out of water at this meeting. The traditional voice would play little to no role in shaping the future of youth ministry in the UM Church, according to this gathering of leaders. The Kingdom of God is the essence of Jesus’ message and the first thing he proclaimed when his ministry began: “The time has come; the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15; cf. Matthew 4:17, Luke 4:43). Turning God’s reign to be established on earth into a relationship among people (kin) is to exchange the vertical dimension of the faith for the horizontal. Removing the Fatherhood of God is not only unscriptural, it also contravenes our doctrinal standards, where God is named as Father, and jeopardizes our understanding of the Trinity. These are serious doctrinal matters.
I have heard from students in the Course of Study for licensed local pastors that some of their professors grade their papers down for using masculine or Father language for God. Some annual conference boards of ministry require candidates to use gender-neutral terminology for God, or their ability to be ordained is put at risk. Interestingly, God is referred to as Father 32 times in our Book of Discipline, and baptism, confirmation, and ordination are required to take place in the name of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” The official stance of the church allows the use of masculine language for God, yet parts of the church in the U.S. have taken it upon themselves to make the use of masculine language unacceptable, even for traditionalists.
One wonders where the traditionalist pastors of the future will come from in the UM Church. Congregations that are traditionalist and want a traditionalist pastor may find there is a shortage of traditionalist UM pastors. Many annual conference boards of ministry are routinely delaying or excluding traditionalist candidates for ministry. Many district committees on ministry discourage traditionalist candidates from pursuing a calling to ministry in the UM Church. Without an ongoing supply of traditionalist clergy, traditionalist congregations will need to accept clergy who may not promote the same theological perspective as the congregation. And it will certainly diminish the traditionalist voice.
While we cannot know for sure that traditionalist voices will not be welcome in the future UM Church, and we accept at face value the sincerity of those who promote that they will be welcome, past and current experience does not provide a hopeful indication that will be the case.
Inaccurate information and caricatures abound in the sharing of material related to congregational discernment of their future alignment. We should make our best effort to share accurate facts and, when speculating, make clear the basis of that speculation. We will not be perfect in that regard, but we make our commitment to make every effort to do so. Correcting misinformation is a job for all of those who are leaders in the UM Church and those in the process of disaffiliation. An accurate understanding of reality gives a solid basis for decision-making that will lead to no regrets later and avoid any feeling of having been betrayed or misled. The best decision is one that considers all the relevant facts and information while prayerfully considering one’s understanding of the faith, seeking the best alignment with a denomination that reinforces one’s values and beliefs. That kind of decision is a win for everyone involved.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Aug 5, 2022 | Uncategorized
By Thomas Lambrecht
One of the important financial costs for local churches to disaffiliate from the UM Church is a payment of that local church’s proportional share of the annual conference’s unfunded pension liability. That liability is calculated monthly by Wespath and shared with each annual conference on either a monthly or quarterly basis (at the request of the annual conference).
For those looking for a good explanation about why there is an unfunded pension liability, Wespath has an excellent 18-minute video that carefully explains what this is all about. Other resources about disaffiliation and pensions are also posted on that Wespath page.
Several years ago, we learned that the unfunded pension liability payment for most local churches would be seven to ten times their annual apportionment. The dramatic growth in the stock market then reduced that liability to about four to six times a church’s annual apportionment.
The good news just received is that the July 1 pension liability calculation has dramatically reduced the liability once again. As of last September 1, 2021, the pension liability was about $2.6 billion. The latest calculation has reduced that liability to $1.35 billion. So in ten months, the liability has been cut almost in half.
According to Wespath, the primary factor in reducing the liability has been the rise in interest rates. As interest rates have risen, Wespath can project a higher rate of return on long-term bonds and other instruments an insurer would use to fund pension obligations. The higher rate of return means less money is needed up front to achieve a target amount down the road.
Of course, pension assets have declined recently, due to the decline in the stock and bond markets. However, the increased interest rate projections have far outweighed the decline in asset value. So the net effect is to greatly reduce the pension liability.
The further good news is that the Fed just raised interest rates another three-quarters percentage point, which should further reduce pension liability on the next calculation. Further interest rate increases throughout the rest of this year will also continue to reduce the pension liability.
The other factor that helps reduce pension liability is a reduction in the premium that insurers charge to assume annuity obligations or defined benefit liabilities. In the past, that premium added ten percent to the liability cost. Recently, Wespath found that the marketplace premium had declined from ten percent to between five and six percent. Beginning July 1, Wespath is now charging a five percent premium instead of ten percent, which helps lower the liability.
The bottom line in all of this is that pension liability payments for disaffiliating churches just got a lot less expensive. While each annual conference’s situation is different, some conferences will experience a drop of less than half, while other conferences will experience a drop of more than half.
The key is that local churches that are disaffiliating should insist that their annual conference use the most recent calculation of pension liability to set the church’s exit fee. Most annual conferences give an up-front estimate of the pension liability cost and then set the exact number based on the calculation closest to when the local church votes to disaffiliate. This would enable the church to take advantage of declining pension liabilities to lower its cost for disaffiliation.
Local churches that have up until now thought that the cost of disaffiliation was prohibitive might find that the new numbers bring the cost within a more reasonable range. Now would be a good time to take a second look.
For most annual conferences, the window for disaffiliating will close next May-June at the regular annual conference session. If churches do not move through the process in time to be approved next spring, there may not be an equitable avenue for them to disaffiliate at all. General Conference may enact a new pathway in 2024, but there is no assurance that will happen, especially with centrist and progressive leaders dropping their support of the Protocol.
If your local church is at all interested in exploring the possibility of disaffiliation, now is the time to get started in that process. The recent reduction in pension liability may be of great help in making that decision.
Updates on Annual Conference Disaffiliation
Since publishing last week’s list of annual conference disaffiliation terms, there are updates to some conferences.
Western Pennsylvania just established their additional terms of disaffiliation. Besides the pension liability and two years’ apportionments, they require the local church to pay 11.1 percent of any unrestricted endowment funds and 20 percent of the value of land and buildings. Unfortunately, this moves Western Pennsylvania into the category of annual conferences blocking disaffiliation, as most congregations could not afford to pay the additional 20 percent of property value, nor is it fair to require them to do so.
Eastern Pennsylvania has also recently added terms to its disaffiliation, most notably the requirement to renounce previously paid-for liability insurance and the local church’s need to purchase retroactive liability insurance. This retroactive insurance is very expensive, and it requires a church to double pay for liability insurance for the same past period of time. In addition, the conference trustees reserve the right to impose additional payments on a case-by-case basis. The local church will only find out about these additional payments at its first meeting with conference officials. The insurance issue alone is enough to block some churches from disaffiliating. And if the additional payments include a percentage of the church’s property or assets, it will block those churches, as well.
The Oklahoma Conference clarified its disaffiliation process, moving it from a conference that facilitates disaffiliation to one that adds additional costs, but where disaffiliation is still possible for most churches. Before a church can proceed with disaffiliation, the conference will make a study to determine if they believe the local church is “viable.” If not, they will recommend against disaffiliation. Oklahoma requires a church to become current in apportionment payments for the previous two years, instead of just one, which could raise the church’s cost of disaffiliation to three years’ apportionments if the church did not stay current. The conference disadvantages local churches that are hoping to avail themselves of the reduced pension liability cost (see the article above) by using a six-month average of the monthly figures. The next average will be calculated in September, which means that the number will only benefit from three months of reduced pension costs out of six months total. The full effect of the reduction in pension costs will only be felt in Oklahoma next March 2023. Uniquely, the Oklahoma conference includes active and retired clergy who relate to a particular local church as eligible to vote on disaffiliation. This may contravene Par. 2553, which requires “a two-thirds majority vote of the professing members of the local church present at the church conference.” Since clergy are not professing members of the local church, they should not be able to vote on disaffiliation.
In last week’s Perspective, I said that the Holston Conference had not yet developed its disaffiliation process. That was incorrect, and I apologize for the incorrect information. They have a process that is currently being used by a number of churches. It is not available currently on their website, but is available through the District Superintendent. Fortunately, the Holston Conference has decided to impose no other costs beyond what Par. 2553 requires. They do require a three-month spiritual discernment process. So the Holston Conference can now be classified as a conference that facilitates disaffiliation in a fair and reasonable manner.
In like manner, the Rio Texas Conference is now classified as a conference that facilitates disaffiliation. They impose no additional costs. I had stated that the church would not find out its cost of disaffiliation until after it had voted. While technically correct, the church would also receive an estimate of its disaffiliation cost at the beginning of the process, so they would not be operating in the dark. This will make disaffiliation in Rio Texas more straightforward. They do still require a six-month discernment process, so churches moving toward disaffiliation should get started soon in that conference in order to meet the deadline.
The bottom line on annual conference disaffiliation processes is that 22 conferences (44 percent) facilitate disaffiliation in a fair and reasonable manner. Four of them have reduced pension costs to zero, and one has eliminated the apportionment payments. Fourteen conferences (28 percent) add costs to what Par. 2553 requires, but disaffiliation is still possible for most churches. Fourteen conferences (28 percent) have added requirements that make it almost impossible for a local church to disaffiliate.
For some annual conferences, it appears the intent is to do whatever they can to prevent local churches from disaffiliating. Sometimes, it appears the extra requirements are just a way for the conference to get more money.
One hopes that the example of the reasonable conferences could influence the holdout conferences to become more gracious. Failure to allow gracious separation will only prolong the battle in the church and sap its spiritual and physical energy for ministry.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
