By Edmund Robb III – Good News, January-February 1977 –
What do a one-eyed army captain, an Irish immigrant, and a distraught woman have in common? They were all part of launching Methodism in New York City. Here’s how it all began.
In the early 1760s a group of closely-knit, evangelical Irish emigrated to New York. In a few years, with the social and religious restraints of the old country gone, these new Irish-Americans began slipping away from their warmhearted Christian faith. (These Irish were actually Germans who had been driven out of their Fatherland by the advance of French armies under Louis XIV. These Protestant Germans were never happy in Ireland, so they joined that great migration to the New World.)
Barbara Heck
It took Barbara Heck to wake things up. One night – five years after landing in the city – she discovered her husband, brother, and close friends gambling with cards in her kitchen.
She was outraged! Quickly she swept the playing cards off the table and cast them into the fireplace. Then she firmly rebuked the gamblers. But she knew this wasn’t enough. Something more had to be done!
Still red with anger, Barbara Heck rushed over to her cousin’s house and cried, “Philip, you must preach to us or we shall all go to hell together – and God will require our blood at your hands!”
Philip Embury
But Philip Embury, a 38-year-old carpenter, school teacher, and local Wesleyan preacher, wasn’t so easily convinced. After all, for five years since coming to America he had done nothing to advance Christ’s kingdom.
“Where shall I preach?” he asked timidly. “And how can I preach, for I have neither a house nor a congregation.”
But Barbara Heck was stubborn. “Preach in your own house,” she retorted.
“And who will come to hear me?”
“I will come to hear you,” she insisted.
And she did come – along with four others to Philip Embury’s cottage in September 1766. It was Methodism’s first regular preaching service in America.
Over the winter, the humble Methodist society began growing. Soon Embury’s cottage living room became too crowded and they had to move to new quarters.
After scouting the city they found a rigging loft on Barracks Street. It was an unlikely place for preaching and worship! All around were saloons and military barracks.
But there, on the roughest street in town, these early Methodists set up shop. They built a pulpit, erected benches, and held regular preaching services. On Sunday mornings they gathered at six o’clock to hear Philip Embury preach about Jesus. And they usually met several evenings each week, too. Despite this, these “peculiar” Methodists went regularly to the English Episcopal Church to receive Holy Communion. (Until 1784 Methodists in America were official members of the Anglican Church. John Wesley did allow his local preachers to administer the sacraments of Holy Communion or Baptism. This did not change in England until he died in 1791.)
Captain Thomas Webb
Captain Thomas Webb. One day the Methodists received an unusual boost. A stranger, dressed in the full regalia of an officer in His Majesty’s Army, entered the rigging loft. Tension filled the air. The Methodists’ experience with the British Army had not been good. Had not soldiers tried to break up several societies in England? Perhaps this soldier was about to make trouble here, too. But as soon as the meeting closed, the one-eyed army captain marched to the front and introduced himself as “Captain Thomas Webb, of the king’s service, and also a soldier of the Cross and a spiritual son of John Wesley.”
Captain Webb, as New Yorkers learned to call him, had lost his right eye while commanding troops at the Siege of Quebec in the French-Indian War. As a result he was retired early from active duty and sent home to England to recuperate.
It was during this time that Captain Webb came under the influence of John Wesley’s preaching – and was soundly converted.
Since Captain Webb had been given a preacher’s license by Wesley himself, he was soon invited to begin preaching regularly at the society, alternating with Philip Embury.
Now, many more New Yorkers began attending Wesley’s Chapel. John Wesley must have been right. He said of Webb: “The Captain is all life and fire. Therefore, although he is not deep and regular, many who would not hear a better preacher, flock to hear him. And many are convinced under his preaching.”
The sheer novelty of hearing a well-known army officer preach, “You must repent or be forever damned!” packed people in.
One contemporary wrote, “His figure was portly, his countenance commanding, and he usually wore across his forehead a black ribbon with a blind attached, to cover his wounded eye.”
John Adams, who later became President of the United States, heard Webb preach, and described him as “One of the most eloquent men I ever heard; he reaches the imagination and touches the passions very well, and expresses himself with great propriety.”
Another early writer described the scene this way: “To behold in the pulpit a preacher arrayed in a scarlet coat with splendid facings, having a sword, with the Bible before him, was one of those anomalies which the world, while it ridicules the person, cannot help admiring the boldness of the act.”
Webb declared point-blank to his enthralled listeners that all knowledge and religion were not worth a rush unless their sins were forgiven and they had the witness of God’s Spirit with theirs that they were the children of God.
New Yorkers did admire “the act.” But it was Captain Webb’s warm personality, unusual oratorical abilities, and strong faith which kept them coming back. As a result, within another year, Wesley’s Chapel had to look for larger quarters – again!
John Street. This time the Methodists moved to John Street and built a new chapel. But they had one problem. A law of the colony did not permit dissenters to worship in a church building. So to elude this law, the Methodists built a fireplace in their new chapel, which gave it the official rank of a dwelling.
Methodists have been good fundraisers from the beginning. This first society, for instance, appealed successfully to New Yorkers for financial help. Over 250 responded, from the mayor all the way to a number of slaves.
The new building was opened in October 1768. Philip Embury preached that day from a pulpit he made for the society. He, like Jesus, was a carpenter.
Today, over 200 years later, Philip Embury’s seminal society still stands in the heart of New York City, situated midway between City Hall and Wall Street.
John Street United Methodist Church, as it is now called, is the one church we all own. Because of General Conference action over a century ago, John Street is the only United Methodist Church owned directly by the entire denomination.
As a result, every succeeding General Conference since 1868 has stopped its hectic agenda to receive a formal report from John Street’s trustees, and to elect the local church’s board members for the ensuing quadrennium. (Imagine a General Conference electing your local church’s board members!)
John Street Church continues to minister to people’s needs as it has since 1766. Conditions have changed radically, of course. What was a bustling English port of 18,000 inhabitants, is now the largest city in the United States. Droves of people each day work within walking distance of the church, including employees from international banks, corporate insurance offices, stock and commodity exchanges, and law and government offices.
Each working day many of these people escape from the noisy confusion of the inner city to the sanctuary of John Street United Methodist Church. Here they find solitude and a place to pray.
Captain Thomas Webb is not bellowing vehemently from the pulpit now, but people are still able to respond to the heart-warming Gospel of Jesus Christ, just as they did when Philip Embury and Thomas Webb preached there in 1766!
That’s why John Street is the little church that lasted.
Edmund Robb III was the contributing editor to Good News at the time of this article’s publication. This article appeared in the January-February 1977 issue. Dr. Robb went on to be the founding pastor of The Woodlands United Methodist Church in The Woodlands, Texas. Main photo: Creative Commons.
This series of articles has been looking at the marks of a Methodist, as expounded by Bishop Gerald Kennedy in 1960. How has the expression of Methodism changed or remained the same in the last 60 years? We have seen that the marks of a Methodist include Experience (a personal experience of a relationship with God through Jesus Christ that transforms all of life) and the desire to Make a Difference in this world as an expression of God’s love.
The third mark Kennedy points to is Discipline. He quotes John Wesley’s Journal from August 17, 1750: “Through all Cornwall I find the societies have suffered great loss from want of discipline. Wisely said the ancients, ‘The soul and body make a man; the Spirit and discipline make a Christian.’”
Discipline might be defined as focused and structured effort toward a goal. For a Christian, the goal is both personal holiness (experience) and pursuing the mission of God in the world (making a difference). In the mind of Wesley and Kennedy, the means to reach that goal is through discipline. Kennedy quotes Methodist Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon as saying, “Methodist discipline is as much a part of Methodism as Methodist doctrine.”
Disciplined Time
Kennedy illustrates this focused effort by how we spend our time. He quotes one of Wesley’s “Historic Questions” that have been propounded to every aspiring Methodist preacher since the 1750’s. “Be diligent. Never be unemployed. Never be triflingly employed. Never trifle away time. Neither spend any more time at any one place than is strictly necessary.”
These instructions strike us as somewhat obsessive. One wonders if Wesley ever took a vacation! Unrelenting effort is a recipe for burnout. There are occasions when it is appropriate to waste time. Certainly, the Sabbath principle points to the need for rest and restoration, both physically and spiritually.
On the other hand, many today lack focus and purpose in their lives. When we understand what we are to do with our lives, there needs to be focused time and effort to be faithful to that understanding. We will not accomplish what God has for us to do by sitting on a couch and playing video games. Part of making a difference is devoting our time and energy to those things that will result in making a difference. The more we can give that focused effort, the more we are able to accomplish.
Kennedy sums up his viewpoint, “One of the most serious sins is to waste time. God does not give us a more precious gift than the years of life which are made up of hours and minutes. I find myself more and more in harmony with Wesley’s acute sense of the importance of using every minute of every day with ‘sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,’ as Kipling said.”
Wesley’s General Rules
A primary way that discipline was manifested in the Methodist movement from its earliest days was through Wesley’s three General Rules. Kennedy reminds us that Wesley welcomed anyone with “a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins” to be admitted to a Methodist society, “but once admitted, members either followed the rules or they were dismissed.”
The first rule states that Methodists will evidence their desire of salvation “by doing no harm, by avoiding evil of every kind.” The examples given in the original rule include “profanity, breaking the Sabbath, drunkenness, fighting and quarreling, dishonesty, buying or selling without paying the tax, usury, speaking evil, doing anything that is not to God’s glory, self-indulgence, borrowing without the probability of repaying.” As Kennedy put it, “great living often begins with a resolution not to do some things which other people are doing. Many people have lost their moral standards because they have accepted the silly idea that a ‘thou shalt not’ is always wrong. Life is made noble by the people who dare to say No.”
The second rule is the flip side of the first. Methodists are to evidence their desire of salvation “by doing good in every possible way, and as far as possible to all.” We are to do good “to their bodies” by relieving physical needs of people and providing food, shelter, clothing, and companionship. We are to do good “to their souls” by engaging them spiritually, instructing and encouraging them to grow in faith. We are to do good “especially to them that are of the household of faith,” our brothers and sisters in Christ, favoring them in business and taking special care to minister to the needs of fellow Christians. Most importantly, we are to do good whether we feel like it or not!
Finally, the third rule is to evidence our desire for salvation “by attending upon all the ordinances of God.” These are: public worship, the ministry of the Word, the Lord’s Supper, family and private prayer, studying the Scriptures, and fasting or abstinence. Kennedy affirms Wesley’s promotion of “holy habits” that build our spiritual lives. “[Wesley] was careful to dismiss those who fell away from their obligations, for he knew that such carelessness could destroy the societies. We are not a people under law but under grace. Still, we will lose our way unless we have guideposts and regulations.”
What strikes one is the systematic way that Wesley and Methodism pursues salvation and holiness. This important pursuit is not left to chance, but is carried out in intentional, methodical ways. Just as discipline focuses our use of time, it also focuses our efforts on doing good, avoiding evil, and engaging the spiritual disciplines, the means by which God has ordained for us to grow in likeness to Christ.
High Expectations
Methodism was characterized by the expectation that God would grow the Christian into spiritual perfection. As Jesus said, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). As Wesley understood it, this does not mean perfect in the sense that we never make a mistake. Rather, it is a level of spiritual maturity whereby we are so filled with the love of God that we do not commit any intentional sin. A familiar saying among Methodists is that we are “going on to perfection.”
Most of us may never reach that goal in this life. Wesley himself never professed to have reached perfection. But if we stop striving toward it, we will settle for being much less than we could be.
These high expectations were manifested in an approach to church membership that was characterized by discipline. Kennedy states that of all the thousands of people who professed conversion in the great revivals on the American frontier, “probably not more than a fourth ended up as members [in the Methodist Church]. Candidates for church membership were carefully examined, taught, sifted. They had to attend classes and testify as to the condition of their souls. Nor was it unusual to have members dismissed for failing to live up the rules of the Methodist Church.”
This high expectation has been lost in many churches today, Methodist and otherwise. Studies in church growth over the years have shown that “high-expectation churches” tend to experience greater numerical growth, as well as (hopefully) greater spiritual maturity. The 1950’s before Kennedy wrote his book was a period of some of the highest church attendance in U.S. history. He alludes to the fact, however, that such a “return to church” had not had the equivalent expected impact on the culture of the time. “If the return to religion in our day has not resulted in the moral and spiritual renewal of our society, it is the fault of the churches. If we fail to make clear what Christianity demands, we need not be surprised if our members take the whole affair lightly. The Church only cheapens itself when it fails to make demands and hold up standards.”
Kennedy particularly singles out ministers for needing discipline in their lives. “True it is that our society has no more difficult profession than the ministry. Indeed, it is an impossible task as can be proved easily if you analyze what is expected from the minister by the congregation. No [one] is up to it. But it has always been true that no [one] can carry this load without divine help. The minister is driven back upon God if he [or she] is to ‘walk and not faint.’”
Indeed, this is true in a larger sense of all Christians. We are not able to live up to the high expectations God has for us. That is why we learn to depend upon God to grow us into that spiritual maturity, rather than thinking we can do it all on our own effort. Kennedy reminds us, “we never discover what God can do until our weakness drives us to Him.”
“The time has come when we must hold up The Methodist Church as something that demands the best and insists on discipline. … The Methodist Church has had its great periods of power and influence which were always times of witnessing. We still worship the same Lord, and we believe the same doctrines. If we would accept the same discipline, we could expect the same mighty results. The essential mark of our Church is a disciplined, witnessing fellowship.”
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Art credit: John Wesley preaching in Ireland, 1789. Maria Spilsbury (1777-1820). John Wesley’s House & The Museum of Methodism.
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.
Last week’s Perspective addressed the arguments made by the “centrist” caucus group Mainstream UMC regarding the need for exit paths to be adopted by the 2024 General Conference. This week, I would like to respond to the factual errors and misrepresentations in the Mainstream article. It is important for historical purposes to set the record straight. And if readers are relying on Mainstream’s representations to guide their thinking on the future of the UM Church, it is important to correct those representations where they are in error. I speak as one who has been intimately involved in the cause of renewal for 30 years, was a member of the Commission on the Way Forward, and led the efforts of the Renewal and Reform Coalition at the 2019 General Conference.
How did Par. 2553 come to be?
The Mainstream article states about Par. 2553, “this is the paragraph that traditionalists wrote and adopted at General Conference 2019. It was their so-called ‘gracious exit,’ and it was intended for the ‘liberals’ to leave, not them.”
The original language of Par. 2553 was written and submitted by Leah Taylor, a centrist from the Texas Conference who was also a member of the Commission on a Way Forward. Options for disaffiliation were discussed by the Commission, but not included in its final report. Those discussions formed the basis for several petitions on disaffiliation, including the one by Taylor that become Par. 2553.
Traditionalists proposed amendments to the original language that did several things:
Remove the requirement that a church undergo an assessment as to whether it had a viable future before being allowed to disaffiliate.
Remove the section that allowed for a ten-year payment period for disaffiliation expenses and instead stipulate that payment had to occur before disaffiliation. (This was done because of concerns raised that offering a ten-year payment period could keep the trust clause in effect during those ten years.)
Remove the requirement that all grants received in the previous five years should be repaid to the annual conference.
Those are the only changes that traditionalists made to the original centrist disaffiliation proposal. There was widespread agreement among the Commission members that pension liabilities needed to be cared for. Unfortunately, at the time we did not realize how high the cost of those liabilities would be.
The proposal for a disaffiliation process arose from the awareness that, whether the 2019 General Conference adopted the Traditional Plan or the One-Church Plan, there would be congregations that could not in good conscience remain in the denomination. The various disaffiliation proposals wanted to provide a uniform and straightforward process for such churches to depart.
The proponent of the traditionalist changes to the proposed Par. 2553, the Rev. Beth Ann Cook, summed it up in her speech for the changes. “Any church that discerns that because of today’s votes, they cannot faithfully live out the gospel would have an opportunity to have a fair process and to leave. The intended process is literally how I would want to be treated if I were the one hurting because of that.”
As it happened, the Traditional Plan passed, and traditionalists wanted to give Progressives who could not in good conscience abide by the Traditional Plan a way to graciously exit from the denomination. However, most were unwilling to take the gracious exit and instead decided to defy the decision of the General Conference and repudiate the Traditional Plan, while remaining United Methodist. That left the traditionalists as the only group that was willing to act on conscience to take the gracious exit provided by Par. 2553 in light of that defiance.
Unfortunately, one amendment that was supposed to be made to the paragraph by traditionalists was inadvertently left out. It was intended that we delete the ability of annual conferences to add requirements and payments to those already called for in Par. 2553. But that sentence was not deleted, and some annual conferences have taken advantage of that authority to make it nearly impossible for churches to disaffiliate in those conferences. That is why a new Par. 2553 is needed that levels the playing field and allows all churches to disaffiliate on the same terms.
Are renewal groups seeking to “harm our church?”
The Mainstream article alleges, “The trio of far-right advocacy groups have drafted and submitted legislation to the 2024 General Conference to not only extend the disaffiliation process, but to make it even easier. Further, these groups are committed to sabotaging regionalization and the removal of the harmful language if they do not get their way. They are working to harm our church on their way out the door.”
Good News, the Wesleyan Covenant Association, and UM Action are not “far-right” groups. We represent the majority opinions and beliefs of United Methodism since the denomination’s formation in 1968. The fact that some centrists are labeling us “far-right” indicates how far left the center of United Methodism has moved. Trite name-calling solves nothing. That tells us that the “big tent” of United Methodism may not be big enough to include principled traditionalists, at least in the eyes of Mainstream UMC.
Legislation to extend the option of disaffiliation has been submitted by leaders in the Africa Initiative, an organization speaking for and equipping African church leaders. The only way disaffiliation is being made “easier” under the new proposed Par. 2553 is to make it a uniform process that applies in all annual conferences equally, both in the U.S. and abroad, and disallows the ability of any annual conference to impose draconian costs, fees, and expenses that artificially inflate the cost of disaffiliation to the point of impossibility.
The renewal groups are opposed to the concept of regionalization for several reasons. Allowing different regions of the church to have different policies and even teachings and standards (such as on marriage and human sexuality) could lead to a weakening of connectionalism, which we take to be a major characteristic of United Methodism. It is hypocritical to silence the voice and influence of the African part of the church just when it is getting to be of equal weight to the U.S. part of the church. Some of the stands it is anticipated that the U.S. part of the church will adopt will damage the mission and work of the church in Africa and elsewhere. These are principled reasons and concerns, not merely “sabotage” of the regionalization concept.
At the same time, the renewal groups have offered to drop our opposition to regionalization in exchange for centrists and progressives approving the proposed disaffiliation pathways. Thus far, such an exchange has been ruled off the table by centrists and progressives. If remaining traditionalists, including those in Africa and the Philippines, are blocked from disaffiliating, we are justified in continuing to weigh in on regionalization and other matters concerning the church we are still part of. That does not “harm our church on the way out the door.” Rather, it is exercising responsible stewardship of what it means to be a United Methodist member. If centrists and progressives want us not to “interfere” with the adoption of their agenda, it would behoove them to provide a fair and practical way for traditionalists to continue to disaffiliate.
It is further anticipated that centrists and progressives will have a clear majority of the delegates at the 2024 General Conference. Therefore, they should have no trouble removing what they call “harmful language” on marriage and sexuality. If it is not removed, it will be because of the failure of centrists and progressives to vote for it, not because traditionalists oppose it.
What is the motivation of the renewal groups?
The Mainstream article charges, “The motivation of the [renewal] groups is to grow their new denomination, the Global Methodist Church (GMC). To unpack this, it is helpful to remember that Good News and the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) are basically the same organization. Many individuals serve on both boards. They are housed at the same disaffiliated church in The Woodlands, Texas. Their PO Boxes are a few numbers apart, in the same mailroom.”
The Mainstream article misunderstands the relationship between Good News and the WCA. While we work as allies in support of the same causes, we are not “basically the same organization.” Of the 30 members of the WCA Global Council, only three of them serve on the Good News board, including Rob Renfroe and myself. Neither Good News nor the WCA are housed at a church. Good News has its rented offices in a building in The Woodlands, Texas. We also provide office space to the person who receives and processes donations for the WCA. But the WCA has no centralized office. The president lives in Illinois, the administrative secretary lives in Kentucky, and donations are processed here in Texas. And they have an African coordinator who lives in Zimbabwe! The WCA is truly a dispersed organization, with everyone working remotely! We also have our own separate donor bases and sources of funding, though they may overlap to some extent, consisting of like-minded people. Like any organizations that are allies, we communicate regularly and cooperate on areas of common interest, but we each have our own leadership, history, financial support, identity, and sphere of influence.
Our motivation is not “to grow [our] new denomination, the GMC.” Rather, as our tagline says, we seek to lead Methodists into a faithful future. Our goal is to be a voice for traditionalist Methodists and advocate for traditionalists having the opportunity to discern their most effective and fruitful future, whether it is to remain United Methodist, to become independent, or to join the GMC. Obviously, we hope that churches that disaffiliate will join the GMC or another Wesleyan denomination because we believe the term “independent Methodist” is an oxymoron. Connectionalism is in our DNA, and we need to be connected to one another for accountability and faithful discipleship and missions.
But we are out to build the Kingdom of God, not a particular denominational kingdom. You can judge for yourself whether this is “straight-up self-promotion,” as the Mainstream article alleges. It is mystifying how people who have virtually no contact with us can know for certain our motivations and discount our actual statements as “a smoke screen.”
It is also important to note that all these misrepresentations and allegations appear in a fundraising letter that asks for donations of “$5 to $5,000.” It seems hypocritical for Mainstream UMC to accuse renewal groups of self-promotion in a misdirected and misinformed fundraiser that promotes themselves.
It is fair to disagree and debate the relative merits of disaffiliation, the church’s definition of marriage, regionalization, or a host of other important issues. That dialogue is worth having, if it can shed light on the decisions the delegates will be making at the 2024 General Conference. In the process, however, it would be wise to refrain from character assassination, mischaracterizing motives, and downright factual misrepresentation. Such does not serve the purpose of “holy conferencing” and prayerful decision-making, nor does it belong in the interaction between brothers and sisters in Christ.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Photo: Shutterstock
In an article riddled with factual errors and distortions, Mainstream UMC (the “centrist” caucus in the UM Church) called for “an end to disaffiliations through paragraph 2553.” They maintain that enough local churches have disaffiliated, and it is time to close the door on any more disaffiliations after the end of 2023.
They are wrong. There will continue to be a need for disaffiliation following the anticipated significant changes to be enacted by the 2024 General Conference in Charlotte.
Addressing Mainstream’s Reasoning
The article gives four main reasons for calling a halt to disaffiliations, all of which are specious.
“There has been enough time.” The Mainstream article mentions the almost five years since Par. 2553 was adopted and states, “Any church that has not been aware of what is going on has been asleep at the wheel.”
Due to the Covid pandemic, churches have primarily been disaffiliating during the past two years. It is true that some churches have been “asleep at the wheel.” In other cases, pastors and district superintendents have prevented local churches from discussing disaffiliation or in some cases even knowing about their options.
However, lack of time is not the reason disaffiliation pathways are still needed. Simply extending the time on the current Par. 2553 will not be enough to correct the injustices plaguing this process. The reason some churches have not disaffiliated in the U.S. is the extra costs imposed by some annual conferences (see more below). The reason churches outside the U.S. have not been able to disaffiliate is because their bishops have prohibited them from using Par. 2553 at all! There may have been enough time for many churches in the U.S. to disaffiliate, but that does not mean there is no further need for a disaffiliation pathway.
“Disinformation is rampant.” The Mainstream article alleges that “far-right advocacy groups have trumped up all kinds of nonsense to get people to leave. … A church may … be persuaded [to disaffiliate] by the continuing flow of false information. Extending the season for their disinformation is unacceptable.”
It is fascinating how groups that have represented the mainstream view of the UM Church from 1968 until 2019 are suddenly being called “far-right.” That is actually an indication of how far left the center of gravity of the U.S. church has moved. Trite name-calling solves nothing. That tells us that the “big tent” of United Methodism may not be big enough to include principled traditionalists, at least in the eyes of Mainstream UMC.
It is also amazing how often traditionalist renewal groups are accused of disseminating “disinformation,” without any specific examples to point to. The leaders of Good News, the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA), and UM Action have yet to be confronted with any specific instance where we have been factually incorrect. We espouse opinions and draw conclusions with which centrists and progressives disagree, but that is hardly “disinformation.” What is more, we generally attempt to back up our opinions and conclusions with reasons why we think the way we do. The Mainstream article just makes bald assertions without any evidence and expects their conclusions to be accepted.
Renewal ministries will continue to share information that is relevant for congregations to consider as they discern whether they truly fit within a more progressive UM Church, even though we are sometimes surprisingly hindered from doing so by denominational leaders. In every instance, representatives of the denomination have the unhindered ability to refute our perspective and present the case for remaining United Methodist. That conversation is an appropriate one to have, and allowing equal opportunities to present perspectives aids a local church in making an informed decision. Censoring the traditionalist perspective by calling it “disinformation” does not serve local churches well.
“Other paths for departure are available.” The article maintains that “churches have, on occasion, left the UMC before Par. 2553 was available. … They still can.”
It is true that local churches have occasionally left the denomination before Par. 2553 was adopted. If a church was small and did not have valuable property, the conference would agree to let them go. This might happen once in ten years in an annual conference. I am aware of only a couple of large churches that were able to leave in this way. Sometimes, they were able to leave because the conference could not afford to assume the large debt on these churches’ property. However, now that dozens of churches want to leave, including churches having valuable property that could be sold to support the annual conference’s ministry, very few annual conferences are willing to let those churches go without a prescribed disaffiliation pathway.
Only two annual conferences have announced a specific policy for disaffiliation that will apply after December 31, 2023. And these policies depend upon the consent of the bishop (who in some cases will be new by the end of 2024) and the agreement of the annual conference. There is no certainty that even these annual conferences would allow large numbers of churches – or congregations that hold valuable property – to disaffiliate. A prescribed pathway in the Book of Discipline is the only sure thing, and even then, some UM leaders have found ways to create loopholes or ignore such provisions when they want to.
“Fighting is unhealthy.” The article states, “just the act of taking the vote has divided churches across the United States. … We need to move from a conflict-centered church to a mission-centered church. … Extending the fight does not extend the Kingdom of God.”
There is no question that conflict in a church poses a challenge. If conflict is handled well, it can help a church’s ministry move forward. Handled poorly, conflict can devastate a congregation.
The same is true for a denomination. As the 2019 General Conference demonstrated, conflict in our denomination has reached destructive levels. If fighting were so unhealthy, centrists and progressives would have stopped fostering conflict over the church’s traditional sexuality standards that were affirmed at every General Conference since 1972. Instead, they kept promoting a fundamental change in the church’s beliefs and teachings around marriage and human sexuality, leading to the impasse following the 2019 General Conference.
In the aftermath, many church leaders, including Mainstream UMC, realized that, to resolve the denominational conflict, it would be necessary to allow conflict at the local level, as churches discerned whether their future lies within or outside the UM Church. That realization led those leaders, including Mainstream UMC, to endorse the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. That endorsement was intended to allow local churches to discern their future and potentially disaffiliate under more favorable terms than those contained in Par. 2553. Unfortunately, Mainstream UMC and other centrist and progressive leaders withdrew their endorsement of the Protocol, leading to a chaotic disaffiliation process that fostered far more conflict than was envisioned under the Protocol. If fighting were so unhealthy, centrist and progressive leaders would have kept their word and continued to promote the Protocol as the most amicable disaffiliation proposal available.
But now, having once endorsed a disaffiliation pathway that was more standardized and less costly, Mainstream UMC wants to end disaffiliations entirely. It is disingenuous for Mainstream UMC to claim to want to end the fighting when they have been part of promoting conflict in the church and abandoned the best opportunity available to minimize that conflict.
If fighting is unhealthy, so is coercing local churches to remain in a denomination that is changing its beliefs in a way contrary to the wishes of that local congregation. A forced covenant is no real covenant at all. That is what many churches find themselves in now, either because they have been denied the ability to disaffiliate under Par. 2553 or because their annual conference has imposed costs for disaffiliation that are impossible to pay.
Why is a disaffiliation pathway needed?
Simply put, a new disaffiliation pathway is needed to correct the injustice that has been done to some churches. Bishops have denied churches outside the U.S. the possibility of using Par. 2553 to disaffiliate. The few churches that have successfully disaffiliated outside the U.S. have mostly done so outside the boundaries of the Discipline. Most churches outside the U.S. have no wish to defy the Discipline to disaffiliate. In simple fairness, the UM Church should provide United Methodists outside the U.S. the same opportunity to discern their future and disaffiliate as that given to U.S. United Methodists.
It is readily apparent from the Mainstream article that some U.S. centrist leaders do not think it is important to treat non-U.S. members fairly. In fact, the article contains no mention of the situation outside the U.S. Myopically, it treats the U.S. situation as reflective of the global situation, or else does not think it is important to consider the needs of over half the members of the denomination residing outside the U.S.
The other injustice needing to be corrected is how some congregations have been treated by their annual conferences. Some annual conferences have done everything possible to prevent any of their congregations from disaffiliating. Some had long, tortuous processes that discouraged churches from even considering applying to disaffiliate. Others forbid churches from hosting speakers to share a pro-disaffiliation perspective with the congregation or worked through pastors to prevent congregations from even considering the possibility. Most egregiously, some annual conferences have imposed draconian costs of 20 to 50 percent of the church’s property value, as well as other fees and expenses that artificially inflated the cost of disaffiliation to the point of impossibility. One church in California would have to pay over $60,000 per member to disaffiliate.
Furthermore, some bishops and district superintendents advocated for churches to wait to consider disaffiliation until after the 2024 General Conference. Their argument is that nothing has changed, that the UM Discipline still reflects the official position of the church. And that no one can predict what the General Conference may or may not do in 2024. The implied promise is that after the 2024 General Conference there will be a disaffiliation pathway for these churches to use. If the General Conference does not pass a disaffiliation pathway, that promise will be broken.
To rectify these injustices, members of the Africa Initiative (an organization speaking for and equipping African church leaders) have submitted a new Par. 2553 and another new paragraph allowing non-U.S. annual conferences to disaffiliate. Good News and our sister organizations have agreed to support these proposals as the best option to provide fairness for churches still wanting to consider disaffiliation, whether inside or outside the U.S.
History will look back on this time to see how we as Methodist Christians have treated one another. Let both history and our surrounding world see that Christians can be gracious to one another, even in conflict!
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Photo courtesy of Unsplash.
Lovett Weems of the Lewis Center for Church Leadership has released his annual report on the state of UM clergy, particularly focusing on the number of young clergy (under age 35). This has been a particular area of concern for the denomination, sparking a number of initiatives designed to increase the number of younger clergy. His report allows us to make a number of observations about the state of United Methodist clergy as of the end of 2022.
Accelerating decline in the number of clergy
The first thing to notice is that the total number of clergy is declining at a faster rate. The number of elders has gone from over 21,500 in 1990 to just over 10,000 in 2023. This decline of over 50 percent has paralleled a similar decline in UM church membership and number of congregations during that same time. In 1990, there were over 8.8 million United Methodists in the U.S., which number has declined to about 5.7 million at the end of 2021. However, the membership drop is only 35 percent in that time, compared to a 53 percent drop in elders, who are the main group of clergy serving as pastors of local churches.
While a much smaller group, deacons also experienced accelerating decline. From a high of over 1,000 deacons in 2019, there are now just over 900. Full-time and part-time licensed local pastors also experienced a faster decline. From a high of nearly 7,500 local pastors in 2020, there are now just over 6,100 just three years later.
There appear to be at least two factors involved in the decline of the total number of clergy. The Covid pandemic saw an uptick in the number of elders leaving. In the ten years before the pandemic, the annual average decline in the number of elders was between 455 and 480. In 2021, however, 839 elders left the ministry, followed by over 600 in 2022. For local pastors, the numbers were increasing or holding steady up through 2020. In 2021, there was a drop of 232, followed by a drop of 323 in 2022. The hardships of the pandemic and ministry challenges during that period may have caused more clergy to retire or leave ministry.
The other factor causing an overall decline in clergy could be denominational conflict and disaffiliation. The number of elders in 2023 was 1,158 fewer, up from 603 the year before. Local pastors experienced 816 fewer in 2023, compared with 323 fewer in 2022. This sudden jump of over 1,000 in the number of clergy leaving UM ministry could reflect pastors who withdrew as their congregations disaffiliated. There were just over 1,800 congregations that disaffiliated in 2022, and a significant number of the clergy serving those churches may have withdrawn. With close to 5,000 congregations disaffiliating in 2023, there will undoubtedly be another significant jump in the clergy decline.
A changing mix of clergy
Another trend that stands out is the shift from mainly elders as pastors of local churches to the inclusion of a significant number of local pastors, who typically do not have seminary degrees and often are second-career pastors. They receive training through yearly classes at a Five-Year Course of Study (which is usually completed in more like seven years). They can receive this training while serving full-time in ministry, rather than taking three or four years away at seminary.
In 1985, local pastors made up just 15 percent of all clergy. That means there were 5.6 elders for every local pastor. In 2023, local pastors made up 38 percent of all clergy. There were therefore 1.6 elders for every local pastor. Our denomination has increasingly relied on local pastors. One reason may be that they are paid less than elders and so more “affordable” for a local church. Or it could be that more of those feeling called into ministry, especially if they are second-career and have a family, are not able or willing to move away to seminary and invest tens of thousands of dollars in a seminary degree when another path for ministry training is available. Local pastors also offer more flexibility to the denomination because they are not guaranteed a job, as elders are.
Gender
Another trend has to do with the growing presence of women elders and local pastors. The report only contains data beginning in 2020 regarding gender, but even in that short period, there has been growth in the percentage of women in ministry.
For elders, the general rule is that older generations have a higher percentage of men. For example, in 2020 elders over age 55 were 69 percent male, while elders under age 35 percent were 62 percent male. But even within each age cohort, the number of women elders has grown over the past three years. In 2020, 31 percent of elders over age 55 were women, while in 2023 it was 34 percent. The growth in the percentage of women over three years was uniformly 3 percentage points in each age cohort.
For licensed local pastors, the trend was the same (growing numbers of women), but the age experience was the opposite. The older age cohorts have a higher percentage of women than the younger age cohorts. In 2020, 36 percent of the local pastors over age 55 were women, while only 24 percent of those under 35 were women. This dramatic difference could be due to life stages, where younger women are forming families and having children, then entering ministry when the children are mostly grown. This could be due to the second-career nature of local pastors. One could speculate that women elders may be prioritizing a ministry career over other factors, such as family. The important point is that women local pastors also grew over the past three years, by 3 to 5 percentage points in each age cohort.
When it comes to deacons, the situation is different. Women make up a disproportionate number of deacons, and that percentage is staying relatively constant. In 2020, women made up 68 to 77 percent of deacons, depending upon age cohort. In 2023, women made up 72 to 76 percent of deacons. Due to the smaller number of deacons, the percentages can fluctuate more from year to year, but there does not appear to be an overall trend one way or the other.
While women make up half of the population and nearly two-thirds of church members, they still are underrepresented in the ministry. The highest percentage of women is 41 percent of elders under age 35 and 40 percent of local pastors over age 55. Deacons, who normally do not serve as pastors of local churches, have a consistently far greater percentage of women.
Age
The primary concern of the Lewis Center report is with the number of people under age 35 in ministry. The current trajectory is declining numbers of young people in ministry in the UM Church.
In 1985, there were over 3,200 elders under age 35, which represented 15 percent of the total. That number declined to 850 in 2005, which was 5 percent of the total. Various initiatives boosted the number of young elders in succeeding years, so that by 2015 there were 986 young elders, which was 7 percent of the total. Then decline set in, and since 2021 each year has represented a record low number of elders under age 35. In 2023, there are only 449 young elders, which is only 4 percent of the total number of elders. It is mind-boggling that the number of young elders has decreased by 85 percent since 1985!
A similar trajectory is apparent for licensed local pastors. The number of young local pastors has grown substantially since 1985 because the number of local pastors has grown substantially during that time. In 1985, there were only 130 local pastors under age 35, which was 3 percent of the total. That number grew to a high of 654 young local pastors in 2020, 9 percent of the total, but it has declined since then. In 2023, there are only 416 local pastors under age 35, which is still 7 percent of the total.
The situation is the same for deacons. Deacons under age 35 reached a high of 124 in 2017-2018, at 12 percent of the total. Since then, the number of young deacons has declined to 74 in 2023, which is 8 percent of the total.
We spoke above about factors influencing the drop in the total number of clergy in the UM Church. These factors undoubtedly influenced the drop in young clergy, as well. But as one can see with the percentage of young clergy dropping, they have been disproportionately affected by decline.
Why would young clergy decline faster than older cohorts? In a private email, Weems hypothesizes that “the issue may not be so much young elders leaving as when young elders age out of the young elder cohort, they are not being replaced with new candidates.” Factors that could account for this are: a tight job market that offers more (and more lucrative) secular job alternatives for young people; uncertainty whether there will be enough churches needing pastors that will provide opportunities for young clergy, especially with the drop in congregations due to disaffiliation; the increasing number of churches that can only afford a part-time pastor; and a reluctance to stake a career on a denomination torn by theological and ecclesiastical conflict. These factors may be discouraging young people from considering ministry in the UM Church. One would hope that, once the disaffiliation wave has passed and the denomination has set its course for the future, there will be more certainty about the need for pastors and the opportunities for ministry. Other mainline denominations have stabilized after their schisms, but they have continued to decline in numbers, meaning there may well be shrinking opportunities for pastors in the UM Church in the decade to come.
The challenges facing the UM Church in the years ahead include “right-sizing” the number of clergy for the churches that will be available. Congregations are increasingly using part-time clergy, meaning there will be need for more linking of churches to share a pastor or using tent-making clergy who don’t derive all their income from the church. At the same time, clergy have to invest in theological training, which leads some clergy to graduate from seminary with huge student debt, which in turn may not be sustainable on a low or part-time salary. (That is another reason why clergy may choose the local pastor route, which is a less expensive alternative to a full seminary degree.)
All denominations face challenges with matching clergy supply and demand. It is a more acute challenge in those denominations that have guaranteed appointments, such as the UM Church. The GM Church in some areas faces the challenge of not enough clergy. Independent congregations may face the same challenge of finding a qualified pastor willing or able to work for what the church can afford to pay. It will be interesting to follow these clergy trends across denominations in the years ahead.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News.
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. 
