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 3, 2022 | In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht
In the midst of the sometimes heated rhetoric around separation and the conflicts engendered by bishops and annual conferences who are imposing draconian requirements on churches desiring to disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church, it is easy to overlook the annual conferences where the process is conducted fairly.
Out of 53 annual conferences in the U.S., 12 (23 percent) are imposing requirements that make it nearly impossible for local churches to disaffiliate. An additional 17 conferences (32 percent) are imposing additional requirements beyond the two years of apportionments and the church’s share of pension liabilities that Par. 2553 stipulates, but the additional requirements are not normally deal-breakers. Local churches can usually afford the additional amounts if they can afford the apportionments and pension liability.
Conferences Facilitating Disaffiliation
There are 21 annual conferences (40 percent) who are imposing a straight Par. 2553 process with no added financial requirements. A few are requiring payment of retiree health liabilities, but that amount is usually modest. Some are requiring reimbursement of the conference’s legal expenses, which also should be minor.
Of these 21 annual conferences, six have gone out of their way to accommodate churches wanting to disaffiliate.
The Northwest Texas Annual Conference voted in 2021 by over 80 percent to signal its intent to disaffiliate as an annual conference. When the Judicial Council and the Council of Bishops closed the door on that avenue, the conference did all it could to facilitate local church disaffiliation. It voted to spend down its reserves, reducing or eliminating apportionment payments for the next two years. It also used pension reserves to pay down the unfunded pension liability, so that local churches disaffiliating will need to pay very little to do so. Since the conference was small to begin with, it expects to be folded into another UM annual conference when all the churches who desire to disaffiliate have done so. Annual conference members believed that the conference’s assets should benefit all the churches that contributed those assets, not just the churches that remained United Methodist. The gracious result was that pensions and annual conference programming were cared for and churches that desired to disaffiliate could do so, unhindered by the need to raise large sums of money.
Similarly, the Great Plains Annual Conference used pension reserves to reduce its pension liability by two-thirds, easing the burden on disaffiliating churches and also benefitting congregations remaining in the UM Church.
The Texas Annual Conference (covering east Texas) used pension reserves along with market factors to reduce its pension liability nearly to zero.
The Dakotas Annual Conference is providing an 80 percent discount on the second 12 months’ apportionment amount that local churches need to pay. It’s formula for allocating pension liabilities favors small churches, particularly churches that have not had a pastor who participated in the pension program (e.g., served by a part-time local pastor or supply pastor). The formula is based on the number of years of pension credit received by still-living pastors while they served the given congregation.
The Central Texas Annual Conference passed nearly unanimously a “plan of separation” that used pension reserves to reduce pension liability. The plan also created a conference level position to administer disaffiliations.
The Oklahoma Annual Conference also used pension reserves to reduce its pension liability and limited the apportionment amounts owed to the current and previous calendar years.
These and the other 15 annual conferences that are offering a straight Par. 2553 disaffiliation are to be commended for facilitating the separation process in a way that is respectful and honors the decisions of local churches without trying to coerce them into remaining United Methodist. This process still presents a barrier to particularly small churches that cannot afford the pension liability payment.
The annual conferences in this category include: Alaska, Central Texas, Dakotas, East Ohio, Great Plains, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Alabama, North Carolina, Northwest Texas, Oklahoma, Pacific Northwest, South Georgia, Tennessee-Western Kentucky, Texas, Western North Carolina, Wisconsin.
Conferences Adding Requirements
The next group of 17 annual conferences add some requirements to the basics of Par. 2553, but those requirements may not apply to all churches or they pose a relatively modest additional cost, compared to what Par. 2553 requires. Some of these conferences require payment of retiree health care liabilities. Some require repayment of grants received from the annual conference anywhere from the last one to ten years (which of course would only affect those churches that received grants). Some require an extra year or two of apportionments. Some require payment of pastoral compensation to the current pastor if he/she does not also disaffiliate and either takes a pay cut or cannot be appointed to another congregation.
Disturbingly, Holston, Eastern Pennsylvania, Northern Illinois, and Western Pennsylvania are still developing their terms of disaffiliation. There should be no excuse for being this far behind, when Par. 2553 has been on the books since 2019. Since this provision for disaffiliation expires at the end of 2023, these annual conferences will need to work extra hard to enable churches to meet the deadline. And the imposition of additional financial terms might move these conferences into the “impossible” category below.
Also of concern in this group of conferences, the Rio Texas Conference apparently will not release to the local church its total financial obligation until AFTER the local church has voted to disaffiliate. How can a local church make an informed decision about disaffiliation unless they have all the information needed? The financial piece is a very important part of the decision process. One hopes that provision will be quickly changed.
The New England Conference does not impose additional costs, but it requires an onerous eight-month study process that includes input from other UM churches, conference leaders, and non-UM members of the local church’s community. People from outside the church should not have the ability to block a local church’s disaffiliation. Requiring such a long, complicated discernment process is mainly designed to discourage local churches from even considering disaffiliation and is thus a form of coercion.
Conferences in this group that require more than the Par. 2553 minimum, but still make it possible for most churches to disaffiliate include:
Alabama-West Florida, Arkansas, Eastern Pennsylvania, Holston, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New England, North Georgia, North Texas, Oregon-Idaho, Rio Texas, Upper New York, Virginia, West Ohio, Western Pennsylvania.
Conferences Blocking Disaffiliation
A group of annual conferences are imposing additional financial and other requirements that in effect block churches from disaffiliating by making it unaffordable. Nearly all of these 12 conferences require payment of a percentage of the local church’s property value, ranging from an undetermined amount (at the discretion of the conference trustees) up to 100 percent in one case! In addition, South Carolina Bishop Jonathan Holston is not allowing any church to disaffiliate because he says he is not violating the Book of Discipline, and thus no local church qualifies to separate under Par. 2553. West Virginia Bishop Sandra Steiner Ball is also refusing to use Par. 2553 for the same reason. That annual conference appears to have no disaffiliation process. A few churches are looking at disaffiliation through Par. 2549, which requires the annual conference to close the church and then allow the church to buy back the facilities.
In addition to having no disaffiliation process available to local churches, the Northern Illinois Conference is even now still removing licensed local pastors who are exploring disaffiliation along with their congregation. Fear and intimidation tactics obviously prevent local churches from even considering the possibility of disaffiliation, for fear of losing their pastor. Such heavy-handed tactics reflect poorly on the annual conference and will alienate even more churches.
The Florida Conference, while not requiring payment of a percentage of the property value, is requiring a form of liability insurance that is rarely available commercially, and when it is available, is prohibitively expensive. That has given rise to a lawsuit by 106 local churches there, as reported in last week’s Perspective.
The Greater New Jersey Conference takes the prize as the worst state for churches to disaffiliate. Their list of additional costs include: unfunded retiree health care liability, the church’s share of the BSA abuse settlement, 18 months of compensation for clergy who do not disaffiliate with the congregation, moving costs for two moves for such clergy, a percentage of the church’s cash and investments equal to the percentage of the congregation voting against disaffiliation, a $3,500 administrative fee, and a possible payment for the property value at the discretion of the conference trustees. Unfortunately, trust law in New Jersey favors the denomination, making it almost impossible for a local church to gain its property through litigation. If the 2024 General Conference does not pass some form of uniform exit path that curbs this abusive list of fees, congregations in New Jersey may be better off simply walking away from their property and starting over.
Conferences making it very difficult or impossible to disaffiliate include: Baltimore-Washington, California-Nevada, California-Pacific, Florida, Greater New Jersey, Illinois Great Rivers, Mountain Sky, Northern Illinois, Peninsula-Delaware, South Carolina, Susquehanna, West Virginia.
Some More Keys
In order to do disaffiliation right, annual conferences should post their disaffiliation policies and requirements on their websites. One-fifth of all U.S. annual conferences fail to do so. Transparency is the gold standard for building trust, and these conferences are failing the test.
Another step annual conferences can take to do disaffiliation right would be to schedule a special annual conference session (or more than one) to approve local church disaffiliation. At least a dozen annual conferences have already scheduled such extra sessions for this fall. Some are also considering special sessions for fall of 2023 to catch churches who are moving through the process at the last minute before the provisions expire at the end of December 2023. Such sessions can be done virtually and would entail minimal expense. It would behoove annual conferences to graciously provide for churches that are at different points in the disaffiliation process, rather than insist all churches in the conference must conform to a rigid schedule.
As is evident by the survey above, there is a crying need for a uniform and equitable disaffiliation process, both in the U.S. and for annual conferences overseas. The failure of church leaders to hold General Conference as scheduled at least in 2022 is facilitating great harm to many congregations.
The 2024 General Conference has a chance to belatedly right this wrong by passing the Protocol or a version of Par. 2553 that curbs the abusive requirements imposed by some annual conferences and facilitates the ability of congregations to act on the dictates of their consciences. Wespath has proposed a different way of handling pension liabilities that could save local churches a lot of money, while still ensuring the soundness and viability of future pension benefits. As of yet, however, there is no support coming forth publicly from the centrist or progressive camps for adopting a uniform disaffiliation policy in 2024. Adopting that will require broad support across the spectrum. One hopes it will yet materialize.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Jul 25, 2022 | In the News
By Thomas Lambrecht
It was announced this week that 106 United Methodist congregations in Florida have filed lawsuits against the annual conference after invitations to negotiate an amicable exit were ignored and rejected by the Florida Annual Conference. The purpose of the lawsuits is to gain reasonable terms for the departure of these congregations in order to join the Global Methodist Church.
These congregations represent 19 percent of the 560 Florida UM congregations. The separation of 13 additional congregations was approved at the 2022 annual conference session.
“The continued disobedience to and selective enforcement of our denominational covenant contained in the Book of Discipline by denominational leaders, and the continual degrading of traditional Methodists within the [Florida] Conference, leave traditional churches no other option if they want to live out and contend for their orthodox faith — they sadly must leave the denomination,” said the Rev. Jeremy Rebman, president of the Florida chapter of the Wesleyan Covenant Association.
Based on their press release, the churches taking legal action want to use ¶ 2548.2 of the Book of Discipline for disaffiliation, which would allow the conference to permit the payment of pension liabilities over time, rather than as a lump sum payment up front at the time of departure. The current pension liability figure in Florida is running about 5-6 times a church’s annual apportionment. For many smaller churches, this lump sum is unaffordable.
However, from what I have been told by leaders in the Florida WCA, the sticking point that is preventing most of the churches from disaffiliating relates to a unique requirement imposed by the Florida Conference trustees. Due to the prevalence of hurricanes, the Florida Conference self-insures all its churches for property and liability. The churches pay their insurance premiums to the annual conference for this required coverage.
The conference trustees are requiring any local church that disaffiliates to renounce the liability insurance they have already paid for in the past and purchase new private insurance to cover the past three years. Churches would not be allowed to file any claims for insurance coverage from the past, dating back to at least 2009, even though they paid the premiums to obtain that coverage over the years. That means if an allegation of negligence or misconduct surfaced for an occurrence more than three years ago, the church would bear the entire risk and need to pay for its own defense against that claim. In today’s litigious climate, million-dollar awards are fairly common, which could bankrupt the local church. The legal expenses alone in defending against a claim could equal a small or medium-sized church’s annual budget.
Under normal circumstances, it would be irresponsible of local church leaders to assume that kind of risk on behalf of the congregation. And they should not have to. The local church already paid for that insurance coverage for all previous years. They should be able to avail themselves of the insurance coverage they purchased.
To add insult to injury, the conference is requiring local churches to purchase private liability insurance retroactive for the previous three years. Such coverage must also cover the conference and its leaders, even though (again) the conference insurance already covers those years. There is only one company doing business in Florida willing to write retroactive liability insurance. And the premiums for such retroactive insurance are steep. One church found that the cost would be $130,000 per year for three years, with the ability to obtain such insurance doubtful.
So the local churches seeking disaffiliation are essentially required to forgo insurance they already paid for, leaving them on the hook for years of potential liability claims. And they are required to pay double insurance premiums for the past three years, including covering the annual conference and its officers on behalf of the local church.
I have been told that some of the 13 churches already approved for disaffiliation in 2022 may not be able to complete their disaffiliation due to being unable to obtain that retroactive insurance. The simple unfairness of being unable to avail themselves of insurance already paid for is enough to justify an attempt to gain more favorable terms, let alone the unfair requirement to pay double for three years’ retroactive insurance.
The 106 churches desire to amicably separate from the UM Church. The Florida Conference is making that nearly impossible. The lawsuits are aimed at moving the needle toward a negotiated settlement that is more reasonable and would allow the churches to disaffiliate without jeopardizing their future ministry through insurance risk and financial costs.
“These churches are merely asking for an exit that is ‘in the spirit of the Protocol’ which is a phrase Bishop [Ken Carter] frequently uses,” said Rebman. “We pray for the softening of hearts within the leadership of the Florida Conference. We pray that they will bless traditional Florida churches by allowing them to depart amicably, without paying exorbitant amounts of money that would all but collapse most churches. This was what the Protocol called for; this is what Bishop Carter signed onto when signing the Protocol. This is what we pray will result from the legal action taken today. Let us go!”
Florida Conference leaders, including Bishop Carter, have called for an amicable process of disaffiliation. Let’s hope they will reconsider their current approach and work out an amicable settlement of these lawsuits that would allow both the 106 congregations and the annual conference to move unhindered into their best future.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. Photo: Shutterstock.
by Steve | Jul 5, 2022 | In the News, July-August 2022
By Rob Renfroe
Will the post-separation United Methodist Church be “the big tent” denomination that centrist pastors and bishops claim it will be? Leading centrists tell us that there will always be a place for traditionalists. The beliefs of conservatives will be respected and valued, we’re told. Some centrists will even go so far as to say that the future denomination needs traditionalists to be at its best. The promise is conservatives will never have to do anything they don’t feel comfortable doing and they certainly do not need to leave. You know, open hearts, minds, and doors – open enough to embrace even the likes of you and me.
Can we trust what our centrist brothers and sisters are telling us? In a word, no. I’m sad to say this is a lesson I have learned after working with leading centrist pastors and bishops for the past two decades. What they promise they will do today is completely forgotten tomorrow if it proves inconvenient. There are exceptions, of course; but at the upper level, those who can be depended upon to be true to their promises are just that – exceptions.
In Portland at the 2016 General Conference, progressive, centrist, and traditional leaders were called together by the president of the Council of Bishops to discuss moving forward with respect. What was to be one two-hour meeting turned into four. Before we were done, everyone in the room agreed there was no position that could hold the church together, not even “the one church plan” that progressives and centrists had supported. Out of those meetings came the Commission on a Way Forward that was to propose a new solution that would end the fighting.
However, the Commission brought to the church not a new solution that would lead to a respectful separation, but the same plan that had been defeated in 2016 – the same plan that centrist leaders had agreed could not hold the church together. Their commitment to a gracious parting that was made in Portland was forgotten, and they lobbied fervently for the passage of a plan they had agreed could not hold the church together. Why? Because they were convinced that with the full support of the bishops and with the misinformed belief that a good number of African delegates had changed their position, they could win. So, they reneged on their commitments, they broke the bonds of trust we had created and forced a fight that did not need to occur.
General Conference 2019 was billed as the Conference that would settle our differences once and for all. We would pray, we would engage in holy conferencing, and this special called Conference, dedicated to this one issue, would declare who The United Methodist Church was to be and how we would live together. Of course, when the progressives and the centrists lost, they refused to see the Conference as God giving us his will. Instead, it was decried as mean-spirited traditionalists and Africans infecting the church with a terrible virus (those were the words of a leading centrist pastor). In full-page statements in leading newspapers across the nation, the prayerful deliberations of General Conference were excoriated as prejudiced and hateful. Who signed these statements? Hundreds of centrist and progressive pastors and leaders. Why? Because they lost. All their talk about how together at GC 2019 we would receive God’s will for our future sounded so good. But, of course, their words meant nothing when the result was different from what they believed it would be.
Later in 2019, a group of leaders representing the vast spectrum of theological opinions within the UM Church met to create a plan to end our fighting. Miraculously, they did. Called The Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation, it was endorsed by every special interest group in the denomination. However, even before General Conference 2022 was postponed, some centrist leaders who had supported the Protocol began to speak against it, saying that it would have to be renegotiated. Why? Because they believed they were gaining the upper hand and could negotiate a more favorable deal. Again, their word meant less than their desire for a political victory and greater control.
When GC 2022 was postponed until 2024, many traditional churches decided it was time to disaffiliate. Without the Protocol each bishop now has enormous power in determining what will be required for churches wanting to leave. Bishops can be gracious or punitive. Ironically, those who have accused traditionalists of being legalistic are requiring that exiting churches pay every cent that is required by the Book of Discipline. Some “centrist” bishops are even requiring that churches pay what the Discipline does not require. In addition to apportionments and the unfunded pension liability specified in the Discipline, they are demanding anywhere from 25-50 percent of a church’s total assets before allowing them to leave. These bishops know that these fees will either make it impossible for many churches to leave or will cripple them financially, if they leave, and greatly diminish their future ministries for the Kingdom. Why are they doing it? Because they can. Because they are angry institutionalists.
How can we trust centrists who have lectured us about having hearts of peace if they are now demanding their piece of flesh? One UM pastor said, “Well, Christians should not begrudge paying a price for their convictions.” She seemed to miss the part that those requiring us to pay that price were other Christians.
Can we trust these centrist leaders when they tell us that our views will be respected? Views that we have been told are unloving and unjust? Leaders who have proven themselves duplicitous and hypocritical and willing to use their power to control and damage faithful congregations who simply want to live by the standards General Conference has set?
The post-separation UM Church – a place of peace, a big tent, a denomination where traditionalists will be respected? How can we ever believe such a claim? We should not trust those who do not keep their commitments. From my experience, those making the promises are the same leaders who see those who disagree with them as hatemongers and bigots.
So, when centrist and progressives assure you the big tent of the UM Church will be grand enough for you, trust me, sometimes past results do predict future performance. Some will tell you we can all get along because they are naïve enough to believe it to be true. Others know it’s not true, but they will say it anyway. Why? Because they can. Because it makes them feel better about themselves when they pretend to be open-minded. Because it serves their purpose of keeping as many traditional churches as possible within the UM Church until they can appoint a centrist or a progressive pastor to serve those congregations and turn them into “a real United Methodist Church.” Why? Because they know some good-hearted traditionalists cannot believe that their bishop or their pastor would ever tell them something that’s untrue.
You may want to stay in the UM Church. You may be progressive in your theological views and that’s your prerogative. But if you are a traditionalist, think twice about trusting the assurances and the promises made by centrist bishops and pastors. Their track record of keeping those promises speaks for itself. Do not stay because you hope you’ll be treated well if you remain. You won’t.
There are many centrists and progressives of character who desire a peaceful solution to our division that does not create winners and losers. For them we are grateful, especially for those bishops who are working in good-faith with traditional churches. But those who are telling you that the UM tent will always be big enough for traditionalists – I cannot think of a single reason you should stake the future of your church upon their promises.
Rob Renfroe is a United Methodist clergyperson and the president of Good News. This editorial appeared in the July/August 2022 issue of Good News.
by Steve | Jun 27, 2022 | In the News
By Walter B. Fenton
When The United Methodist Church’s Commission on General Conference postponed the 2020 General Conference for the third time, theologically conservative local churches wanting to exit the denomination were forced to set their sights on their annual conference gatherings to gain some sense of how they might leave the denomination with all their property and assets.
It was widely believed the General Conference would, like many other large international gatherings, meet this year to approve a plan of separation called the Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. The plan clearly spelled out how theologically conservative local churches could exit the UM Church and join a new Methodist body.
As the annual conference season unfolds for United Methodists in the U.S., local churches are learning provisions and terms for departing the denomination can vary widely among the 53 UM annual conferences in the U.S. Why the terms vary depends on the bishop who leads an annual conference. Clergy and lay leaders from thousands of theologically conservative local churches have shared exit terms that run the gamut from amicable and gracious to onerous and punitive.
Earlier this year the UM Council of Bishops “affirmed by an overwhelming majority” that a disaffiliation process approved at the 2019 Special General Conference “would be the primary [process] used for disaffiliation and separation.” This disaffiliation process is just one way local churches can exit the denomination, and bishops know there are alternative processes. The majority simply decided it was the process they wanted to use.
Bishops and annual conferences could just as easily allow local churches to move to another denomination (e.g., the Global Methodist Church) rather than disaffiliate. The terms in such a process could be clarified in a comity agreement that is fair to all parties, allowing for an amicable and orderly transfer of a local church.
In fact, Bishop Tom Bickerton, president of the Council of Bishops, immediate past presidents, Bishops Cynthia Harvey and Ken Carter, and other bishops worked for months with theologically conservative leaders to develop a comity agreement based on a provision in the UM Church’s Book of Discipline.
The parties entered the negotiations to create an amicable and orderly fallback plan annual conferences could use if the General Conference was postponed and the Protocol could not be approved. The negotiations only broke down when it became apparent that some bishops were insisting on terms not in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the Protocol.
“It was an opportunity missed,” said the Rev. Keith Boyette, the Global Methodist Church’s senior executive officer. “As originally conceived, the comity agreement adopted as much of the Protocol as possible so centrist, conservative, and progressive Methodists could go their separate ways sooner than later. Unfortunately, what is now unfolding are sundry approaches to separation, some laudable, but others appear driven by exacting as high a price as possible for local church exits.”
In annual conferences where exit terms are reasonable, theologically conservative local churches are planning to accept them as soon as possible. They typically allow churches to disaffiliate after paying apportionments, pension payments, and other nominal fees, in return for clear title to all the local church’s property and assets.
Where terms are officious, burdensome, and impose prohibitively high financial costs, many theologically conservative local churches have decided they have no choice but to remain in the denomination to work for the passage of the Protocol at the 2024 General Conference, and failing that, return to the long battle for a reformed UM Church where leaders abide by its teachings and hold others accountable to them. The only other alternative is to resort to litigation in the secular courts.
“I am very grateful the Wesleyan Covenant Association’s Global Legislative Assembly decided to push forward on behalf of these trapped local churches,” said Boyette. “I know Africa Initiative, the Confessing Movement, Good News, and UMAction will come alongside them to do the great organizing they’ve always done on behalf of theologically conservative United Methodists, particularly those in annual conferences with bishops exhibiting a heart of war rather than a heart of peace.”
Considering the haphazard approach the UM Church has adopted for allowing theologically conservative local churches to leave the denomination, the 2024 General Conference is likely to be an ugly repeat of the infamous 2019 special General Conference. Centrist and progressive United Methodists erupted in anger when a coalition of international delegates from Africa, Europe and Eurasia, the Philippines, and the U.S. soundly defeated a plan to liberalize the UM Church’s sexual ethics that was championed largely by denominational elites and progressives based in the U.S.
“It makes no sense to me to drag out a bitter conflict that continues to drive down UM membership, worship attendance, and financial support, but that’s the UM bishops’ decision, not mine,” said Boyette. “For our part, we in the Global Methodist Church will continue to welcome new congregations and pastors to the fledgling denomination. We stand ready to do whatever we can to assist them as they seek to exit the UM Church.”
Theologically conservative local churches wanting to explore the steps necessary to join the Global Methodist Church should visit the Frequently Asked Questions section of the new denomination’s website, giving particular attention to the second question and the helpful links included in the answer. Learn more about the Global Methodist Church by exploring its website.
The Rev. Walter Fenton is the Deputy Connectional Officer for the Global Methodist Church. Image: Marianne Bos/Unsplash.
