In America, Halloween is the second biggest holiday of the year, based on consumer spending. Without a doubt it almost completely overshadows the day from which it derives its name. “Halloween” is the contracted form of “All Hallows’ Eve”, the night before All Saints’ Day. It isn’t surprising that All Saints’ Day gets lost in the shuffle of holidays, celebrations, and consumer trends. Our culture seems to promote sins and sinners rather than sainthood. Unfortunately, Christians, too, while affirming their belief in the “communion of saints” most often overlook the promise of sainthood given to all of Christ’s disciples.
Here are three reasons you might want to take a little time this week to trace the trajectory of God’s work in your life. Believe it or not, you are on the path to sainthood, too.
Three Reasons for “Ordinary” Christians to Observe All Saints’ Day
Our “Celebration Repertoire” is pretty puny.
For most holidays the standard scope of celebratory options seems to be buying things, having parties, special food and/or music, a parade, maybe some entertainment spectaculars, and, sometimes, perhaps on Memorial Day or a 9/11 Remembrance in the US, a solemn ceremony.
We’re about to enter the “holiday season”. Many people guard their calendars, brace themselves, and generally “clear the decks” to prepare for the frenzy of the Halloween—Thanksgiving—Christmas – New Year’s Marathon. No wonder All Saints’ Day gets overlooked.
By contrast, All Saints’ Day is entirely out of step. It’s hard to imagine an “All Saints’ Day Sale!”, or an “All Saints’ Day Prime Time Special” on TV, or even the “All Saints’ Bowl” football game (though there is, to be sure, some arguing over whether South Bend, Indiana or New Orleans, Louisiana is home to heaven’s favorite football team.)
Despite being out of step with our cultural celebrations, or maybe precisely because it is truly a holy-day observance, perhaps we should reconsider our consigning All Saints’ Day to the category of “just another day.” We might find ourselves encouraged and refreshed by expanding our “celebration repertoire” to make more room for worship, prayer, gratitude, meditation, and traditions of both remembering those who have gone before us and connecting with those who are walking the way of Jesus with us right now.
There is a huge crowd of witnesses cheering us on…especially in trying times.
When we affirm our faith in the words of the Apostles’ Creed, we confess our belief in “the communion of saints.” The common understanding of “the communion of saints” is our recognition that we stand in a long line of Christian believers, stretching from the distant past into the indeterminate future, throughout all places and all times, living and dead, who have been, are now, or will yet be disciples of Jesus Christ. This is the wondrous and sobering encouragement from the “Faith Hall of Fame” in Hebrews 11 that looks to the past. But then, the Scriptures address us directly here and now:
Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a huge crowd of witnesses to the life of faith, let us strip off every weight that slows us down, especially the sin that so easily trips us up. And let us run with endurance the race God has set before us. 2 We do this by keeping our eyes on Jesus, the champion who initiates and perfects our faith. Because of the joy awaiting him, he endured the cross, disregarding its shame. Now he is seated in the place of honor beside God’s throne. 3 Think of all the hostility he endured from sinful people; then you won’t become weary and give up.
Hebrews 12:1-3 NLT
The saints of the past are examples and models. They encourage us to keep going; don’t become weary and give up.
For All the Saints (OGRP # 480 / UMC hymnal # 711), often used in corporate worship on the occasion of All Saints’ Day, includes these words to help us press on:
And when the strife is fierce, the warfare long,
Steals on the ear the distant triumph song,
And hearts are brave again, and arms are strong.
Alleluia, Alleluia!
The extraordinary impact of ordinary Christians like us.
When we confess we believe in the “communion of saints” we are not only looking back, but also looking around. We are seeing the sisters and brothers in Christ with whom we share this particular season of life together. These are the “saints” who do not need a council of the church to investigate and authorize the holiness of their lives. No one names a church building after them. They don’t get a special “Feast of Saint Kevin” or a “Fast Day in Honor of Saint Libby” on the calendar. For the most part, their name is familiar to only a relatively small circle. But they are the “saints” most of us know. In fact, you are likely one of those saints, too.
Really? Absolutely.
Sometimes there are gems hidden in those portions of Scripture we often overlook. Like what? Like those greeting lists with which the Apostle Paul closes most of his letters. Their names? Here are a handful of them: Epaphras, Demas, Nympha, Archippus, Trophimus, Eubulus, Pudens, Claudia, and Linus. They were the ordinary people who, as disciples of Jesus Christ, lived, worshiped, witnessed, loved, and served in Jesus’ name. Ordinary people, I would venture to say, that became part of the extraordinary redemptive mission of God because they said, “yes” to Jesus.., and kept saying “yes” every day thereafter.
The Apostle Peter includes this description of us:
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. (1 Peter 2:9-10)
Peter was not writing to a group of people who had some kind of Graduate Degree in Holiness. He was writing to ordinary believers who had been given the extraordinary role of “declaring the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”
That is the extraordinary calling for every Christian. Peter goes on to remind us that while we live in the world here and now, we are aliens and foreigners. We represent the King of Glory while living in the kingdoms of this world.
Among the many things I appreciate about the Wesleyan Covenant Association is the “association” part. Since entering the role of President, I have had the unreasonably joyful opportunity to have conversations with an amazing “cloud of witnesses”, young and old, male and female, leaders of churches and Sunday morning worshipers…but all who are devoted to Christ and seeking to discern the best path forward. Why?So that the community in which they are located can be blessed by the congregation of which they are a part.
There is another hymn sometimes sung for celebrations of All Saints’ Day. Though is it s bit chirpy for my personal taste, the words catch the bifocal vision of looking to the past and remaining focused on our own impact in the present:
1 I sing a song of the saints of God,
patient and brave and true,
who toiled and fought and lived and died
for the Lord they loved and knew.
And one was a doctor, and one was a queen,
and one was a shepherdess on the green:
they were all of them saints of God, and I mean,
God helping, to be one too.
2 They loved their Lord so dear, so dear,
and God’s love made them strong;
and they followed the right, for Jesus’ sake,
the whole of their good lives long.
And one was a soldier, and one was a priest,
and one was slain by a fierce wild beast:
and there’s not any reason, no, not the least,
why I shouldn’t be one too.
3 They lived not only in ages past;
there are hundreds of thousands still;
the world is bright with the joyous saints
who love to do Jesus’ will.
You can meet them in school, or in lanes, or at sea,
in church, or in trains, or in shops, or at tea;
for the saints of God are just folk like me,
And I mean to be one too.
(OGRP, # 482 / UMC Hymnal, #712)
Are you expecting to be among “all the saints”?
That is the glorious gospel trajectory for all who surrender themselves to the Lord Jesus.
We are sent, together, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, for the healing of the world in Jesus’ name. Let’s not settle for anything less.
Two-hundred-eighty years ago, John Wesley (Methodism’s founder) wrote The Character of a Methodist to describe what he considered the essential qualities of a Methodist. I bloggedabout it in June. Just 63 years ago, Methodist Bishop Gerald Kennedy did a take-off on Wesley’s work in The Marks of a Methodist(1960). It is instructive to see what changed and what stayed the same in the intervening 220 years, as well as how Kennedy’s perception of Methodism fits with today’s church. I previously wrote about Mark #1: Experience.
Mark #2 is about the tangible effect that a Methodist Christian can have upon the world. Kennedy notes, “I am still a simple Methodist, believing that the church and the faith ought to make a difference. I believe in results. … Unless we betray our heritage, we must be a church committed to a faith in practical holiness. If the time ever comes when The Methodist Church cannot point to changed lives and conditions because of its preaching and witness, it will be its own witness against itself.”
In today’s United Methodist Church, when we hear about the church making a difference in the world, we often point to political statements or lobbying for certain causes in the public arena. It should be noted that the church’s influence over societal issues is relatively limited. The church’s influence can be seen most dramatically during Prohibition in the 1920’s and to some extent the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s.
The most profound impact of the church happens from the bottom up, when individuals are changed or convinced of the rightness of a cause and work toward its adoption. Both Prohibition and Civil Rights are examples of grassroots movements that eventually were codified in law. The hundreds of pages of resolutions and policy papers written by church leaders mean nothing if the hearts and minds of the common people are not first changed and convinced.
Changed Lives
Kennedy does not point to political action as the sign of the kind of change he sees Methodism producing, but to the changed individual. “Whenever it was necessary to defend his work, John Wesley could point to members of his societies. It would not have been said of them, as it is too often said of us, that there is no discernible difference between the Church and the world. … The very fact that a [person] became a Methodist at all, meant that he had made a decision.
“I think we must come back to this or become increasingly ineffective. It has to cost something or our whole Christian profession is a farce. … We can be content with nothing less than an affirmation that Jesus Christ is to be Lord of all life. Believe me, it is later than we think, and The Methodist Church must produce more results than it has been producing.”
How are these changed lives produced? Kennedy points to the priority of evangelism. He points to the criticisms of evangelism prominent in his day. “At the very time when Hitler depended on mass rallies to conquer Germany, the Church was saying that large meetings with preaching and singing were outgrown and would not work. In the very day when ninety thousand people go crazy at a football game, we will see to it that no one gets excited about religion, if we can help it.”
I vividly recall the statement by 19th century evangelist D.L. Moody, who responded to a critic of his evangelistic methods, “I like my way of doing evangelism better than your way of not doing it!” Too often, our critique of methods becomes an excuse not to do evangelism at all.
“I think it is most important to get one thing clear,” Kennedy goes on. “We may disagree as to methods of evangelism, but we cannot disagree about evangelism itself and remain Christians, to say nothing about remaining Methodists. Evangelism is not just one interest of the Church, for there simply is no Church if evangelism is not present. … That we should ever think that nothing is to be done to bring the Gospel to [people] who once knew it and have forgotten, or to [people] who never heard it truly, is simply unthinkable.”
How The United Methodist Church has changed! Today there is very little emphasis on evangelism or witnessing for one’s faith or sharing one’s experience with Jesus Christ. The substitute for evangelism today is inviting one’s friends and neighbors to church, which is a good start but no equivalent to introducing people to Jesus.
Kennedy points to a statement in the 1960 Book of Discipline: “The Methodist Church believes today, as Methodism has from the first, that the only infallible proof of a true church of Christ is its ability to seek and to save the lost, to disseminate the Pentecostal spirit and life, to spread scriptural holiness, and to transform all peoples and nations through the gospel of Christ.”
He notes in response, “If we are not accomplishing these results, then by our own confessions we are no longer the Church.” He concludes, “Our words and our experiences open the door to the Temple where [people] may enter the Holy of Holies and find God. Methodists believe that every [person] ought to do this constantly. We believe that this is the mark of a true Church.”
The United Methodist Church (and the Global Methodist Church, for that matter) will only thrive once again when we have regained our voice to share Jesus Christ with our families, our friends, our neighbors, and our coworkers. It starts with us making sure we have something to share! We cannot give what we do not have. Having a transformative relationship with Jesus Christ, we can then share our experience with others, helping them draw near to the One who alone can meet their deepest need.
Organization
Another way of making a difference in the world is fostered by the Methodist penchant for organization. Kennedy notes the difference between George Whitefield and John Wesley. Whitefield was a better preacher and converted thousands. Wesley, however, organized his converts into small groups for continued spiritual growth and support. Over time, many more of Wesley’s converts had grown as disciples of Jesus Christ, experienced life transformation, and impacted their world for good, while more of Whitefield’s converts had fallen back into old ways, if not fallen away from faith altogether.
John Wesley famously wrote, “‘Holy solitaries’ is a phrase no more consistent with the Gospel than ‘holy adulterers.’ The Gospel of Christ knows no religion but social; no holiness, but social holiness.” By that, he meant that one cannot be a Christian and grow in holiness without being part of a community of faith that organizes itself to foster spiritual development.
Kennedy explains, “Methodists are a people with a passion for order which we have inherited from the Founder. … There are those who think we are overly organized, and it is probably true that no Protestant church has more machinery. Some would say that truth organized is truth killed, but our point of view is that the organization of an institution is society’s defense against waste. It is a reflection of our demand for results.”
Kennedy was conscious of the fact that organization can get out of hand. “We need to keep our machinery under constant scrutiny and criticism. Woe unto us when we think organization is the end and not merely the means. There are times when we set up wheels within wheels until one would think we exist only to provide jobs for preachers who are tired of serving churches.” He was unafraid to “name names” even at a time when Methodist organizational structure was considered the epitome of how a denomination should be organized. In the last 60 years, United Methodist organizational structure has only grown in size and complexity.
Acknowledging the need for critique, Kennedy goes on, “Yet I plead for more appreciation of our genius for organization and for more enthusiasm when we do move like a mighty army. … We are a connectional Church, which is to say that we do things together.” He points out how every person has a role to play, and the failure of one person to fulfill his or her role means that others must “take up the slack.” His desire is that “Methodists would gain a quicker appreciation of how much this machinery saves time and increases our effectiveness. Administration is not always an inspiring activity, but it, too, is a part of God’s plan for the evangelization of the world.”
Kennedy’s statement that “the Boards and the Administration exist to help individuals and churches” is regrettably no longer completely true. Some of our United Methodist boards and agencies have created their own kingdoms to the neglect of resourcing and empowering individual disciples and local churches. Like anything else, when done poorly, organization can be a hindrance and a distraction. But when done well, organization can become a channel of the Holy Spirit for the transformation of lives and the equipping of disciples and local churches.
Social Witness
Only at the end of this chapter on making a difference does Kennedy mention the church’s social witness. That witness presupposes the evangelism, discipleship, and life transformation that has gone before, organized into a consistent strengthening of the fellowship of believers as a vehicle for societal change.
Kennedy states, “Our Church still stands as one of the fellowships which assumes that religion is both personal experience and social witness. … It has been amply documented that the great revivals produced social results and released forces which modified and changed society. … Methodism has set loose forces of reform and moral uplift which never have run down. The prophetic note is always an essential part of our message, for society is ever in the process of growth, and it must be influenced to change for the best. To say, as some have done in recent days, that the Church must mind its own business, is nonsense. … Let us rejoice in our record of carrying our faith into the market place, the mine, the factory. And let us resolve that the power of Christ to change lives will be released by us.”
One gets the impression that, for Kennedy, the social witness of the church was just that – a witness, a “prophetic note” in the message of the church. Even in his description, the power for social change comes from individual transformation through the power of Christ. That does not preclude statements by the church on public policy issues, but the emphasis is on the transformative power of the Gospel, which in turn unleashes “forces of reform and moral uplift.”
Mark #1 of a Methodist is the experience of the power and presence of God in one’s life, the redemptive transformation of the cross of Christ made personal, and the power of the Holy Spirit to engage us in worship and holy living. Mark #2 of a Methodist is the desire to make a difference, to have measurable results from the ministry of the church through evangelism and discipleship channeled more effectively through the organization of the church, with the resulting social transformation brought about by spiritual revival and renewal. That is an appealing message to today’s young people, who desire nothing more than to make a difference with their lives. Returning to these roots, affirmed by both Wesley and Kennedy, can energize Methodist churches (whether United or Global) to effective ministry.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Art: An engraving based on a painting by Alfred Hunt depicting John Wesley preaching to a crowd at the site of his father Samuel Wesley’s grave at St. Andrew’s Church in Epworth, England – Public Domain
Why Disaffiliation is an option for the United Methodist Church in Africa
September 2, 2023
Introduction
Over the past months, much has been written by proponents of the “regionalization plan,” claiming that they have received overwhelming endorsements for its passage at the forthcoming 2024 General Conference. They have also indicated their perceived justifications as to why they claim regionalization is the way forward for keeping The United Methodist Church (UMC) “global and united.” These proponents may be correct, given that both the Connectional Table of the UMC and the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters have indicated their support for regionalization. However, the UMC Africa Initiative holds a contrary view. We write this article, therefore, to elucidate the position of the majority of United Methodists in Africa (clergy and laity) on why we reject regionalization, and rather opt for disaffiliation as our best option.
The traumatic General Conference of 2019 in St. Louis was supposed to end the conflict in The United Methodist Church over its ministry with LGBTQ persons, including issues of same-gender marriage, and the election and consecration of gay persons as episcopal leaders within the UMC. Parts of the Traditional Plan were adopted, which maintained the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and continued to restrict the ordination of partnered gays and lesbians. Accountability to maintain the Book of Discipline was also increased. However, in the aftermath of the 2019 General Conference, about 28 annual conferences in the U.S. and several in Europe voted for resolutions disapproving the changes adopted in St. Louis by the General Conference, the UMC’s highest decision making body. Some of these conferences vowed not to enforce the Discipline, yet claiming to still be in good standing with the United Methodists. Some bishops made similar statements that they would not uphold parts of the Discipline that they disagreed with. Since then, they have violated several laws of the church and continue to do so with impunity.
We wonder, if the leadership of a nation lives in flagrant disobedience to its own governing constitution, thereby fostering acts of lawlessness, what would they expect of their subjects. Such has been the case within the UMC global. Since the St. Louis 2019 Special Session of the General Conference, the church has proved ungovernable by the actions of several politically influential and economically affluent liberal and progressive leaders within the church, including some bishops. They have determined that if decisions of the General Conference do not go their way, they will disobey them until they are changed. Such an attitude on the part of some episcopal and other influential leaders within the church does not suggest that attempts at regionalization of the denomination would do any better. The acts of lawlessness, as describes in the book of Judges, would only increase within global UMC. As the Scripture points out, “In those days, Israel had no king, and everyone did as he saw fit” (Judges 17:6, NIV).
Efforts to Address our Disagreement
The refusal to abide by the Discipline across much of the U.S. and parts of Europe caused a crisis in the church. The actions of gross disobedience to church laws by some members of the Council of Bishops, some annual conferences, as well as some influential leaders brought into question the relevance of their continued leadership of the church. Amidst the crisis, the late Bishop John K. Yambasu of the Sierra Leone Episcopal Area convened a meeting of representatives from across the theological spectrum. After several months of negotiations, the group endorsed a Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation, announced publicly in January 2020. The Protocol recognized that it was proving impossible for the diverse theological perspectives held within the worldwide UMC to remain together in one church.
The Protocol provided a uniform pathway for traditionalists to disaffiliate from the UM Church; even though it should have been the progressives disaffiliating since it was their One Church Plan that failed to pass at the 2019 General Conference; while the Traditional Plan passed, thus maintaining the traditional stance of the church that had governed its life and ministries since the merger of the Evangelical United Brethren Church and the Methodist Church in 1968. However, for the sake of peace, traditionalists accepted to part ways with their liberal and progressive brothers and sisters, and trusting God to supply all our needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus. The agreement of the Protocol also allowed central conferences, annual conferences, and local churches to vote to disaffiliate at minimal cost, while retaining their buildings and property. In addition, it gave the new traditionalist denomination evolving from the UMC $25 million in start-up money from reserve funds of the UMC. But, to our shock and dismay, progressives and centrists who had supported the Protocol later rescinded their decision, thereby putting all the work of the Protocol in a limbo.
Furthermore, the Protocol had asked bishops to delay any complaints or charges against clergy for performing a same-sex wedding or being an ordained self-avowed practicing homosexual. Many bishops agreed to this delay, which had the effect of encouraging more same-sex weddings to take place and allowed annual conferences to begin more openly ordaining partnered gays and lesbians, even though that was not the intent for delaying complaints. It was done in good faith, in the hope of fostering peace toward amicable separation. Regrettably, several progressive U.S. annual conferences took advantage of that agreement and, in 2022 and 2023, ordained more openly gay clergy. As if their actions to elect a partnered lesbian as bishop in 2016 against the constitution of the church and the decision of the Judicial Council was not enough of a gross violation, the progressives went ahead in 2022 to elect another partnered gay man as a bishop in the Western Jurisdiction. This means that there are now two openly gay/lesbian bishops of the whole church. Now, how can a part of the church that is pushing for regionalization continue to grossly violate our common Book of Discipline, the decision of the General Conference, and the Judicial Council, and still advocate for a United Methodist Church comprising of traditionalists and progressives? How can unity, in the true sense of the word ever exist within such a denomination when one wing of the church can violate our commonly held decisions at will with impunity, and when our biblical and theological perspectives on very cardinal issues differ so widely? If all of these vices, and gross disobedient actions of the liberal/progressive wing of the church are taking place when traditionalists and progressives have not yet officially separated, one wonders what the situation would be like if regionalization passes at the forthcoming General Conference, and every region begins to make their own governing laws without the inputs of other regions, in the same denomination.
Why Disaffiliation is our best option
In view of the prevailing situations within the worldwide UMC, we do not need additional convincing proofs that both traditionalists and progressives can no longer remain in one denomination and faithfully carry out the mission of the church. We are fully convinced that, disaffiliation of traditionalists from the UMC is our best option, going forward. The continued violation of church laws by the economically powerful and politically influential liberal and progressive leaders, coupled with the acquiescence of some of their progressive counterparts in Africa are sufficient proofs that remaining together as one church, following 2024 General Conference is inconceivable and impossible.
These liberal and progressive brothers and sisters within the UMC have over and again made is crystal clear that they do not care about our biblical understanding and practices, and our religious and cultural values. What matters most to them is the imposition of their liberal/progressive views and practices upon the denomination. Therefore if it means that they would take advantage of the poverty-stricken condition of some African annual conferences and use their financial powers to plant some of their liberal cultures and practices amongst them, they would do so with no regrets. As example, despite being fully aware that the UMC in Africa has made it clear that we do not condone the practice of homosexuality, the Reconciling Ministry Network within the UMC is championing the acceptance of homosexuality within the worldwide UMC. It has recently supported the planting of two reconciling churches in the Kenya-Ethiopia Annual Conference. They have done so surreptitiously without disclosing their true identity to a people unfamiliar with their promotion of same-gender marriage, and LBGTQ practices within the church.
Sadly, Our Africa College of bishops, who themselves wrote a press release to the global UMC in 2015 denouncing the legalization of homosexuality and LBGTQ practices, have condoned all these evils under their watch with an approval of silence. By their silence, they have approved of the actions of their colleague, Bishop Daniel Wandabula of the East Africa Episcopal Area, who oversees the Kenya-Ethiopia Annual Conference. Not only did Bishop Wandabula collaborate with the Reconciling Ministry Network to plant these gay churches in Kenya (something he would never do in his home country, Uganda, without facing the consequences of the law), he officially consecrated these gay churches as official congregations of the Kenya-Ethiopia Annual Conference. What a betrayal of the sacred office that Bishop Wandabula occupies! Does he qualify to continue to serve the UMC in Africa as a shepherding pastor? Like many African clergy and members, I strongly doubt. This is why disaffiliation is the best option for traditionalists in general, and the UMC in Africa in particular. Our souls are wounded by these acts of defiance against the clear teachings of Scripture and the Book of Discipline that governs the UMC globally. We cannot continue to make disciples of Jesus Christ within such an ecclesiastical context, and expect them to become his faithful followers.
Another case in point is the action of the Council of Bishops to attempt to usurp the function of the Judicial Council by interpreting a decision of the General Conference. The Judicial Council decreed that elections of bishops should take place in 2022 to replace bishops due for retirement. However, with no legal authority to do so and without consultation with the Committees on Episcopacy in each Central Conference, the Africa College of Bishops, with the acquiescence the Council of Bishops, refused to hold elections in the Central Conferences of Africa. Whereas, some of the African bishops refusing to step down have long passed retirement age in 2020, the Council of Bishops play blind eye to their insistence to stay on. We are cognizant of the fact that such a decision would have never been allowed by the Council of Bishops in any jurisdictional conference. But, for Africa, it was okay with them to treat us differently. This act of oppression and suppression of the rights of members of the UMC in Africa is nothing short of neo-colonialism.
This was not the case in 2016. Following General Conference in Portland, Oregon, all bishops across the connections who were due for retirement were compelled by the same Council of Bishops to step down by August of that year, 2016, and replaced with interim bishops until elections were held. Former Bishop John G. Innis of Liberia was one of such Bishops whom the Council of Bishops forcibly retired by August 2016 and replaced with an interim Bishop until the Liberian episcopal election was held in December 2016. However, this time around they have ignored that provision of the Book of Discipline. The action of the Council of the Bishops and their progressive leaning colleagues in Africa has disenfranchised the members of the UMC in Africa from exercising their rights to elect and replace retired bishops. It appears, that action is a part of their agenda to “divide and conquer” — that is, to liberalize parts of the church in Africa so that when disaffiliation happens they would still have a presence on the continent. This is an act neo-colonialism to the core, and we, Africa Initiative, representing the majority voice of the UMC in Africa, vehemently oppose it.
The perception of most liberals and progressives of the church in Africa is that we are poverty-stricken and ignorant, as one bishop in the U.S. said, “[we are] children who need to grow up.” For them, to possess a progressive mindset, and submit to progressive tenets and practices, even if they contradict the clear teachings of Scripture, means that they are intellectually sophisticated. Hence, they claim leaders of African United Methodism must accept progressivism to demonstrate growth.
Despite their perceptions of the UMC in Africa, we are not ignorant people. Regarding financial resources, our challenge may be the practice of honest Christian stewardship of God’s resources entrusted to our care, but we are not without resources. God is with us to carry on the mission of the church in making Christ-centered disciples for the transformation of the African Continent in particular, and the world in general. And God is big enough to meet our every need. Therefore, we strongly disagree with the perceptions of these liberals and progressives of the UMC in Africa. Besides, it is obvious that the practice of biblical and theological liberalism and progressivism has only contributed to a rapid decline of the church in America and Europe, the loss of its youthful population to secularism and Islam, and great uncertainty about its sustainable future.
On the contrary, in our commitment to biblical Christianity, as handed down to us since the birth of the Christian church, and our refusal to adapt progressive tenets within the African Church, we continue to witness daily massive evangelization, new church plants, Christ-centered discipleship and rapid growth. About sixty-five percent of the African church membership is within the age range of 18 to 35 years, thus signaling a church with a sustainable future. Therefore, if our loyalty to Christ and commitment to the Gospel on the one hand, and our rejection of liberalism and progressivism on the other hand leads to continued numerical and spiritual growth of the church in Africa, we prefer the former than the latter.
We are cognizant of the fact that, liberal and progressive bishops and influential leaders of boards and agencies of the UMC do not have to visit or live in Africa to impose their agenda in some annual conferences here. As long as their demands can be carried out by some of their counterparts who rely upon them for financial resources for salaries and other material resources to function, they believe they can fulfill their goals. This is neo-colonialism, and we reject it. Some African bishops and leaders are fully aware that the Continent of Africa is abundantly wealthy. If its resources are adequately mobilized and utilized to benefit the church, our partnership with U.S. and European churches and institutions would be respectfully and mutually benefitting. But, as the situation stands, the church in Africa is disadvantaged because its independence and decisions are often compromised because of an over-dependence upon highly liberal and progressive churches and institutions in the U.S. and Europe. Despite our current challenges, disaffiliation remains our best option, not only would it save the African church from further liberal and progressive persuasions, its leadership would be compelled to look within and pursue the path of self-sustainability.
Conclusion
We are therefore resolved that, the liberals and progressives within our global connections may “have the whole world, but give us Jesus.” Let us go our separate ways and serve the Lord. We are content to serve the Lord in our poverty and make Christ-centered disciples than to compromise our faith and ascribe to liberal and progressive tenets for American dollars from progressives and liberals. It is within our poverty that we continue to make more disciples for Jesus Christ that are biblically committed, Christ-centered, evangelistically functional, Holy Spirit-empowered, and discipleship-driven. That is why the Central Conferences now account for more membership within our global connection than the five jurisdictions of the U.S. And the UMC in Africa now leads in membership growth globally. We want to continue to grow unperturbed. This is our holy passion and vision.
Liberal and progressive leaders of the UMC in the U.S. and Europe cannot compel the UMC in Africa to be subjugated to their progressive beliefs and practices, neither can they force us to remain within a denomination that has abandoned the teachings of Scripture on the issues of same-gender marriage, ordination of LGBTQIA+ and the consecration of gay/lesbian persons as bishops. We cannot walk together, and do ministry together having strong opposing biblical and theological views on these matters. We cannot continue to be a part of a church where some of our episcopal leaders would condone the unscriptural and unethical behaviors of their colleagues.
All of the above is convincing evidence that the UMC under its present leadership is an institution opposed to historical Christianity, the faith embraced and practiced by the vast majority of Christians in all times and in all places. Unlike a few in Africa who have selected to succumb to the whims and caprices of their progressive counterparts in the U.S. and parts of Europe, we will not sacrifice nor compromise our understanding and practice of the Scripture for American dollars from liberals and progressives. Our position is emphatic, “You may have the whole world, with all its resources, but give us Jesus.” Let it not therefore surprise anyone that, following the 2024 General Conference, given all of the manipulations that have taken place to change the language of the Discipline, and push through the regionalization plan, many annual conferences in Africa will vote to disaffiliate from the UM Church. We will move out along with our spiritual, human, financial, and material resources, because, at this juncture, disaffiliation is our best option.
Rev. Dr. Jerry P. Kulah General Coordinator, Africa Initiative On behalf of the UMC Africa Initiative
According to the latest figures, more than 6,100 local churches have disaffiliated from The United Methodist Church since 2019. According to a recent Christianity Today article, many more would as well, save for the often costly and complicated process required to do so. The bar for disaffiliations has been set so high in some annual conferences that local churches have joined together to petition civil courts to mandate that annual conferences allow them to exit the denomination. In some states judges have ruled against them, while others have ruled in their favor.
However, some congregations, which do have the freedom to hold disaffiliation votes, come to discover a minority of their members can block the majority’s will to exit the UM Church. The high bar of 67 percent of a congregation’s membership must vote in favor of disaffiliation.
What happens when local churches come up just short?
“Many of our people were just heartbroken,” said the Rev. David Lindwall, the former pastor of Montgomery United Methodist Church, in Montgomery, Texas, a community about an hour north of Houston. In early September 2022, Lindwall explained, “Fifty-eight percent of the congregation’s members voted to disaffiliate from the denomination, and of course, many of them attended the church for years. They had poured their time, talent, and resources into its missions and ministries, and lovingly cared for its facilities; they were very faithful members.”
Lindwall – who served Montgomery UM Church for 12 years and whose family had formed strong bonds in the congregation and community – acknowledged his disappointment with the outcome. And as the Rev. Cabe Matthews, his associate pastor wryly put it, “We had a bad week at the office.”
Layman John David Peeples of Collierville United Methodist in Collierville, Tennessee – a suburb on the eastside of Memphis – could commiserate with Lindwall and Matthews. Earlier this year, on a Sunday in late February, 495 members (64 percent) of the Collierville congregation voted to disaffiliate from the UM Church, but 278 (36 percent) voted to remain. The majority fell 12 votes short of the 67 percent required for disaffiliation.
Peeples, who co-led a committee that helped the church move through a long discernment process regarding disaffiliation, was deeply disappointed and exhausted. “Frankly, it was good that the very next morning I needed to leave town to attend to family matters for several days; I needed to be away. I wasn’t sure what I was going to do when I got back home; I guess I figured I would just start looking for a new church to attend.”
In Montgomery, Lindwall, Matthews, and leading laity decided they wanted to make sure members who had voted to disaffiliate did not have to go looking elsewhere. They immediately started making plans to plant a new church, and two months later, in early November 2022, Christ the King Global Methodist Church held its first worship service in a local junior high school.
“It’s as if we traded a building for a mission, and for a much deeper faith,” said Matthews. “While we have an immense amount of work to do, there is an easiness to it, a lightness I have never known before in my life in ministry. In a way, we are just having fun! When we gather, there is a deep joy that we all feel. We know who we are and what we are about, and we know the Lord is with us!”
For the members who decided to leave Collierville UM Church, the pathway to something new was different, but the results are remarkably similar. The majority of the members of the church’s largest Sunday school class had voted for disaffiliation, and they decided they still wanted to meet together on Sundays. Its leaders started searching for a location the day after the vote; they found space at a funeral home. The idea was to meet for Sunday school, and then dismiss people so they could go looking for new churches to attend for worship.
As other Collierville UM Church members learned about the class gathering and where it planned to meet, they asked if they could join them. The requests kept coming all week, so by Sunday, instead of a class meeting, 350 people crammed into a space for 150, and held a worship service.
“People stood against the walls, stood in aisles, and in the foyers,” said Peeples. “There was no plan to hold a worship service or start a new church, but apparently the Holy Spirit did have a plan. We’ve been worshipping at the funeral home ever since, and given the interest and enthusiasm, we decided to plant a church. We are now known as First Methodist Church Collierville.”
The fledgling congregation eventually hired the Rev. Eddie Bromley to serve as its pastor. Bromley, a former associate pastor at the Collierville UM Church, felt called to lead the new church plant.
“My wife and I planted a church 20 years ago; it was in a small rural community,” said Bromley. “We had 40 people, and we all had about 18 months to plan, train and launch. Over almost a decade the church almost got to the size of 200 people, which was fantastic. But this time, rather than 40 people and a pastor starting a church, the Holy Spirit started a church, welcomed 350 people, and then a few weeks later invited a pastor to come and be a part of it. So, I get the joy of pretending to be the leader of this, as if I were smart enough to make any of this happen.”
While Bromley is a Global Methodist Church pastor, the new congregation has not made an affiliation decision. He is currently in the midst of a sermon series exploring Wesleyan distinctives, and notes that the people forming the new church appreciate their Methodist heritage and do not want to lose it.
“We’re trying to lay some good groundwork so when we do begin talking about denominational alignment, or at least the possibility of it, we’re not just sharing ignorance,” said Bromley. “We don’t want to make an alignment decision for just pragmatic reasons. I mean, there are some pragmatic reasons for being aligned with a denomination, including where do they get their next pastor when I’m gone, but I think there are deeper, more important reasons for alignment, and we want to carefully consider them.”
For the people who planted Christ the King in Montgomery, they decided fairly quickly to affiliate with the Global Methodist Church. And both Lindwall and Matthews, who were named the co-pastors of the new church, are GM Church clergy. The congregation has the distinction of being the first GM Church plant in the Eastern Texas Provisional Annual Conference.
“The lay people who stepped up to plant the church are highly committed, very generous, and very, very faithful,” said Lindwall. “They realize they’re on board a mission that is bigger than themselves. They’re interested in building a legacy church that will be in this community for years to come. It’s a challenging and exciting venture!”
Recently, the congregation unanimously voted to merge with The Woodlands Methodist Church, just 25 miles southeast of Montgomery. The Woodlands, also a Global Methodist Church, already has other local church sites in the area. The congregation’s new name will be The Church at Montgomery.
“We’re just honored that The Woodlands approached us,” said Lindwall. “We, of course, are theologically aligned and share the same passion for reaching people for Jesus, discipling them in faith, and helping people in need. This merger propels our mission forward, and will make it possible to accomplish some of our goals much sooner than we anticipated.”
The majority of the nearly 3,000 local churches that have joined the Global Methodist Church did so through successful disaffiliation votes, and so they came with their property and assets intact. But, like the Church at Montgomery, others are the result of people and pastors who have walked away from cherished sanctuaries and chapels, and in faith did something they never imagined doing – planting a church.
“We’re so busy just helping local churches and pastors transition into the GM Church that we’ve not had the time to determine how many of them are church plants, or how many of those planted churches are the result of people who lost a disaffiliation vote, and then boldly decided to plant a new church,” said the Rev. Keith Boyette, the denomination’s chief connectional officer. “But whatever the case, so many of the stories are an inspiration and testament to people’s fidelity to God’s call on their lives. And we’re confident a number of church plants that are still considering an alignment decision will ultimately join the GM Church.”
For the past year the Global Methodist Church has been partnering with the River Network to assist laity and clergy who would like to plant a church. Just recently the GM Church’s Transitional Leadership Council approved an additional 13 church planters and authorized them to plant churches from Concord, North Carolina to Chicago, Illinois to Los Angeles, California, and places in between.
Walter Fenton is the Global Methodist Church’s Deputy Connectional Officer. A graduate of Yale Divinity School and Vanderbilt University, he is an ordained clergyperson and former colleague at Good News.
The last two Perspectives (here and here) extrapolated what the future United Methodist Church might look like on the basis of a foundational article from Mainstream UMC (a centrist advocacy group within The United Methodist Church). A new Mainstream article this week goes further in describing how many centrists see the future of the UM Church.
The article is entitled, “Next Steps (1 of 3): Honesty.” True to its title, the article is honest about where centrists see the church today and where they believe it will go in the near future. This honesty is commendable and helps United Methodists across the spectrum understand what is at stake, as they make decisions about their alignment with the church. It should be remembered that centrists purport to represent the “broad center” of the church and hold most of the power positions in the bureaucracy and the Council of Bishops. Therefore, centrists are a key power bloc in determining the decisions made by the church. Below are some quotes from the article that tell us what we need to know about its vision for the future of the UM Church.
Current U.S. Church Identity
• “Many US and Western European churches and annual conferences are already meeting the ministry needs of their mission field by openly, unapologetically ordaining and marrying LGBTQ persons. … We do not buy into black-and-white dualistic understandings of human sexuality.”
This statement points to the reality that many U.S. annual conferences have moved beyond living by the Book of Discipline. They are disregarding its teachings on marriage and human sexuality. They are ordaining persons regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or partnered status. Clergy who perform same-sex weddings are, for the most part, not experiencing any adverse consequences. Most U.S. and Western European annual conferences have adopted a theology that affirms LGBT relationships and practices.
“There is NO scenario where the US church changes this identity.” Regardless of what the Discipline says, much of the U.S. church has moved on in ignoring it. There will be no going back from this current situation in the U.S. church.
Centrists and the Bible
• “We believe in the primacy of Scriptures and prayerfully explore them through the lenses of Tradition, Reason, and Experience. We believe the Biblical views on slavery, women, polygamy, divorce, and homosexuality are descriptive Biblical truths, that describe what was true for others in another time and place. We believe in the prescriptive Biblical truths of justice, inclusion, and grace.”
Although stating a commitment to the primacy of Scripture, when it comes to issues of marriage and sexuality, many centrists in fact give primacy to experience and reason. There is no real doubt about the clear teaching of Scripture. But many have found a way to say Scriptural teachings don’t apply in this case. They would say, “Because our experience of sexuality and knowledge of sexuality is greater than and different from the biblical authors, we know better what God really wants us to do (namely, affirm same-sex relationships).”
Many centrists use a “canon within the canon” to determine what the Bible teaches. They focus on “justice, inclusion, and grace” (as they define them) to decide whether a particular biblical teaching is in or out. If a particular teaching is not just, inclusive, or gracious (again, as they define them), then that teaching is not applicable in today’s world. (In contrast, traditionalists believe we should strive to understand the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) with all its nuances, seeing the Bible as a whole and understanding how its various teachings and time periods fit together.)
The effect of this focus on justice and inclusion is a particular social-justice agenda for the church that may or may not reflect the actual teachings of Scripture. More significantly, it takes the church’s focus off of evangelism and discipleship and shifts it to the political sphere. Many centrists believe the church is accomplishing its mission when it advocates for particular political positions. While such advocacy may be needed at times, the overwhelmingly biblical emphasis is on evangelism, discipleship, and lovingly caring for others in practical ways. This has been the hallmark of evangelical and traditionalist Methodist churches for generations.
General Conference 2024
• “We, very likely, have the votes to remove the anti-gay language at General Conference 2024.”
This is a true statement. In the aftermath of the 2019 General Conference in St. Louis, delegate elections in the U.S. annual conference resulted in a more progressive delegation. By our calculations, the delegate count would have been very close in 2020, although still slightly favoring traditionalists. Since that time, however, almost 6,200 U.S. churches have disaffiliated, including a number of traditionalist delegates to General Conference. This year, many U.S. annual conferences elected replacement delegates for those who resigned or died since 2019, meaning the delegation will skew even more toward the progressive end. In addition, some annual conferences in Europe that would normally send traditionalist delegates have withdrawn from the UM Church.
• “If we do have a ‘compatibilist’ majority, there is NO scenario where, after suffering significant membership losses in the US, we do not vote to change the language at this upcoming General Conference.”
Many centrists view changing the church’s position on the marriage and ordination of gays and lesbians as an issue of the church’s survival. The allusion to “significant membership losses” indicates they believe that our current biblical stance on these issues is causing the membership losses. This makes centrists very motivated to change the church’s definition of marriage and allow ordination for partnered gays and lesbians. They think it is the only way the church will survive in the U.S.
This whole line of thinking is questionable. Not one of the other Mainline denominations saw their membership grow as a result of changing their position on marriage and sexuality. In fact, their membership losses (Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, northern Baptist, and United Church of Christ) only increased.
Regardless of whether centrist theories of church growth are correct, their statements indicate it is a near certainty that the definition of marriage and ordination standards will be changed at the 2024 General Conference in a progressive direction.
• “We do not yet have 2/3 for regionalization.”
This statement recognizes that the African delegates hold the key to whether regionalization takes place. African delegates make up about one-third of the delegates, so they could potentially block regionalization at the General Conference if they are not convinced it is the right thing to do. Even more importantly, African annual conferences make up over half of the annual conference members that need to vote by two-thirds to approve the regionalization constitutional amendments. Even if only two-thirds of African annual conference members vote against regionalization, they can defeat it.
The regionalization proposal is being marketed as coming from the central conferences outside the U.S. because some of the leaders behind the proposal are from the central conferences. However, the grass roots membership of the central conferences is not yet convinced to support regionalization. Therefore, its adoption at the 2024 General Conference (and subsequent ratification by the annual conferences) is questionable.
• “There is NO scenario where Africa would ordain LGBTQ pastors, even if the General Conference told them to. There is NO scenario where the United States will go back to trials and exclusion, even if the General Conference told them to.”
This statement points out the basic irrelevance of the General Conference. No matter what the General Conference decides, people will do what they think is right, even if it contradicts the General Conference.
Some U.S. bishops have been pushing to marginalize the power of the General Conference and weaken its authority. They believe the General Conference is inefficient and causes division in the church. They would rather the Council of Bishops and the general boards and agencies would run the church. Of course, this would disempower the voices of the grass roots of the church who elect the delegates and empower a favored elite to govern the church. It would also turn United Methodist governance on its head, as the General Conference has been given supreme authority over the church by the Book of Discipline. But again, no matter what the Discipline says, certain leaders think they know better how the church should be run than the voice of the people.
This quote also shows how committed to the LGBTQ agenda centrists are. As we saw in the aftermath of the 2019 General Conference, no matter what the General Conference decides, centrists and progressives will persist in their defiant actions. The possibility of any kind of Traditional Plan or maintaining accountability to a traditional, biblical view of marriage and sexuality is out of the question for the U.S. part of the UM Church.
Centrists and Africa
• “We are committed to remaining in relationship with Africa and the Philippines but recognize that they are much more traditional than even the US traditionalists. They may not be willing to stay in relationship with a church that is openly, unapologetically ordaining LGBTQ pastors … We need to be prepared to live with that … The US is ‘compatibilist’ and willing to live with regions that are much more conservative. The most traditional regions, Africa and the Philippines, then get to decide if they are willing to live with the US church. We cannot, however, live together under false pretenses.”
Although centrists say they are willing to live with regions that are much more conservative, there will continue to be efforts to persuade United Methodists outside the U.S. to support the LGBTQ agenda. Just as the U.S. government often lobbies African governments to change their laws about marriage and homosexuality, UM progressives and centrists will continue to lobby the central conferences to accept and eventually affirm LGBTQ persons and relationships.
Centrists represented by Mainstream UMC are prepared to acknowledge that more traditional parts of the church outside the U.S. may decide to separate. That is a significant acknowledgement. Let us hope that, rather than throw up roadblocks to traditionalists outside the U.S., centrists are prepared to allow them to make informed, prayerful discernment and will honor their decisions.
Currently, the Council of Bishops is saying that Par. 2553 does not apply outside the U.S., even though the language adopted by the 2019 General Conference plainly says, “This new paragraph became effective at the close of the 2019 General Conference.” The only other way for churches outside the U.S. to disaffiliate is through becoming an autonomous Methodist Church, a laborious process that requires General Conference and central conference approval.
Some bishops and other leaders have been advocating for churches to postpone their decision about disaffiliation until after the 2024 General Conference. They are saying that one never knows what the General Conference will decide until the votes are taken. While these leaders are technically correct, the Mainstream articles have given us a clearer understanding of what will happen at the General Conference and what the future UM Church will look like. We can predict the outcome with near certainty.
There will be proposals at the 2024 General Conference to allow local churches and annual conferences outside the U.S., as well as local churches in areas where U.S. annual conferences have imposed significant additional costs, to disaffiliate from the UM Church. Centrists can help facilitate their vision of the future UM Church by adopting these new exit paths. Let us put an end to the fighting and allow mature Christian adults to make their own prayerful discernment about their participation in the future UM Church. Mainstream UMC has given us a much clearer picture of what that future church will look like.
Thomas Lambrecht is United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Image: Delegates and bishops join in prayer at the front of the stage before a key vote on church policies about homosexuality during the 2019 United Methodist General Conference in St. Louis. Photo by Mike DuBose, UMNS.
As of this week, over 3,000 U.S. churches have now disaffiliated from The United Methodist Church since 2019. This means the denomination has lost ten percent of its congregations. More annual conference votes are scheduled for the weeks ahead, and it is estimated that nearly 5,000 churches will have disaffiliated in the U.S. by the end of this year.
Disaffiliation is only the first of two crucial decisions for a congregation’s future. The second decision is whether to affiliate with another denomination or remain independent. And if the decision is to join another denomination, which one?
At last count, over 2,000 congregations had officially joined the Global Methodist Church, with many more in the pipeline to be approved. That makes it far and away the most popular choice among disaffiliating churches. There have been a few congregations that have joined other Methodist/Wesleyan denominations or formed informal networks of (mainly) large churches.
The choice to remain independent is probably the second most popular choice of disaffiliating churches. This article makes the case that connection to a denomination is a vital aspect of Christianity, and particularly of our Wesleyan heritage.
In Our DNA
Connection to one another is in the very DNA of Methodism. That connection began with the formation of small groups called “class meetings,” clusters of twelve who met together weekly for encouragement and accountability. In Wesley’s words, they “united in order to pray together, to receive the word of exhortation, and to watch over one another in love, that they may help each other to work out their salvation” (Book of Discipline, p. 78).
The key to the connection was “watching over one another in love” and “helping each other to work out their salvation.” Accountability and encouragement together led many to a steady growth in faith and kept them from falling away.
As Methodism grew, only those preachers who were “in connection” with John Wesley were allowed to preach in Methodist gatherings. That personal connection was again for the purpose of accountability and encouragement. It ensured that only Methodist doctrine was proclaimed from the pulpit. Those “in connection” with Wesley met annually (the annual conference) to pray for one another and to ensure that they were still all on the same page in terms of doctrine and practice. After Wesley’s death, the connection transferred to the annual conference itself. The Methodist preachers were in connection with each other and still met annually for accountability and encouragement.
Over the last 200 years, connectional accountability has been weakened and, in some instances, lost altogether. That is why the Global Methodist Church is so determined to reestablish that personal relationship of accountability and encouragement among its clergy.
That same principle of connection extends to congregations, as well. Congregations that are independent and not connected can easily come to feel isolated and alone, in need of encouragement. And they can easily lose the ability to hold themselves accountable to the mission of the church and to acting with integrity to live out the Jesus way of life and ministry.
Recent Examples of Needed Accountability
Just last week, it was announced that an influential evangelical pastor and author was placed on an indefinite leave of absence from Christ Presbyterian Church in Nashville. The pastor, Scott Sauls, “apologized for an unhealthy leadership style that harmed the people who worked for him and the church.” The leave came about after an investigation by the Nashville Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America. The investigation found that the church’s lay elders were also responsible for allowing an unhealthy culture on the church’s staff.
The involvement of a denominational accountability system enabled this church and pastor to address a problem before it blew up the church. Problems could be identified and remedies sought in order to correct the problems. The hoped-for result will be a healthier church and a pastor with a healthier leadership style. (In the interest of full disclosure, Good News magazine published an article by Rev. Sauls in the March/April issue. This was prior to the action by the presbytery.)
Contrast that way of addressing a similar problem with what happened at the Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Formed in 1996, by its peak in 2013 Mars Hill Church had an average weekly attendance of over 12,300 at 15 locations. When allegations of bullying and unhealthy leadership style surfaced regarding Pastor Mark Driscoll, the church had to attempt to resolve these issues on its own. Driscoll refused to accept the church’s proposed remediation steps and resigned. By 2015, Mars Hill Church dissolved and closed, and many of its other locations became separate, independent congregations.
Without the stability of outside oversight and denominational support, Mars Hill was unable to address an unhealthy leadership culture and ultimately could not survive as a church.
The sexual abuse crisis in the Southern Baptist Church (SBC) is another illustration of the importance of denominational support and accountability. Although the SBC is considered a denomination, it is really an association of independent churches. There is little denominational structure for holding pastors accountable for misdeeds or even communicating with other prospective churches that a potential pastor was found to have problems. The association has no authority to impose accountability on a local church.
When SBC pastors were accused of wrongdoing, they often just left their church and became a pastor at another congregation. Serial abusers were never caught and continued their abusive behavior. Churches have become potentially liable for million-dollar lawsuits filed by abuse victims. Without a denominational accountability and support structure, those congregations are left pretty much on their own to deal with a horrendous problem.
None of these examples are meant to besmirch the integrity of the denominations or networks associated with the clergy in question. United Methodists who have served on their annual conference’s board of ordained ministry are well aware that these kinds of challenges are confronted in all denominations.
At the same time, being independent sounds great, especially in reaction to the, at times, heavy-handed, top-down United Methodist denominational culture. That is, until the local church must find its next pastor all on its own, ensuring that they adequately vet the candidate for doctrinal fidelity, ministry effectiveness, and lifestyle congruence with the Gospel.
Beyond These Walls
A positive example of what a denominational connection can do was featured in the recent Beyond These Walls (BTW) missions conference held at The Woodlands Methodist Church in the Houston area. Originally put together by missions pastors at a number of large Methodist churches, BTW this year more than doubled in size, thanks to the denominational connections through the Global Methodist Church. BTW brought in top-notch speakers and workshop leaders to inspire, minister to, and equip local church pastors and lay leaders to make missions a key part of their ministry. It was the highest quality missions conference I have ever attended!
The personal connections local mission leaders could make at BTW with mission agencies will allow them to expand the mission outreach of their local churches. Dozens of workshops helped leaders learn how to do mission work more effectively, whether across the street or across the globe. At the conference, the Global Methodist Church announced the launch of its new mission portal that will become the denomination’s platform for connecting local churches to missions around the world. These blessings are not nearly as available to, nor are they as likely to be taken advantage of, by independent congregations not in connection.
It is often pointed out that connection has a multiplier effect in mission and ministry. Churches banding together in a common project or ministry can accomplish things that no single congregation can accomplish on its own. Opportunities for partnership and common action abounded at BTW.
I am, of course, biased in favor of the Global Methodist Church as the best option for disaffiliating UM congregations. I respect the integrity and effectiveness of its leaders, and I have confidence in the new denominational structure they are building that focuses on equipping and empowering local churches as the primary locus of ministry.
But whether it is the GMC or another denomination, the best option for local churches is to be in connection with other congregations that share their beliefs and values. As congregations make that second important decision, I hope they will move toward connection—it’s who we are as Christians and as Methodists!
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Photo: Lead Pastor, the Rev. Mark Sorensen, prays over next-generation leaders at the church conference where The Woodlands Methodist Church voted 96 percent to align with the Global Methodist Church. Photo by Steve Beard.
Here are three reasons you might want to take a little time this week to trace the trajectory of God’s work in your life. Believe it or not, you are on the path to sainthood, too. 
