by Steve | Feb 23, 2024 | In the News, Perspective / News
Unpacking Disaffiliation
By Thomas Lambrecht
By my count, as of December 31, 2023, 7,651 churches have disaffiliated from The United Methodist Church in the U.S. since 2019. This represents 25.8 percent of the number of churches that were listed by the denomination in 2019.
Dr. Lovett Weems, of the Lewis Center at Wesley Theological Seminary, has published a helpful report analyzing the results of disaffiliation, noting the common characteristics of disaffiliating churches and pointing out salient differences. This Perspective will piggy-back on Weems’ analysis with some points of my own.
What conferences were most affected?
The Southeast Jurisdiction led the way with 37 percent of its churches disaffiliating. The conferences most affected were:
- South Georgia – 61 percent disaffiliated
- North Alabama – 52 percent
- Kentucky – 50 percent
- North Georgia – 48 percent
- Alabama-West Florida – 46 percent
- Tennessee-Western Kentucky – 42 percent
- North Carolina – 41 percent
Besides the Red Bird Missionary Conference, which lost no churches to disaffiliation, the only conferences that showed fewer than the 26 percent denominational average for disaffiliation were South Carolina, which blocked disaffiliation for many churches and for a long period, and Virginia, which imposed additional fees for disaffiliation. South Carolina continues to allow churches to disaffiliate via Par. 2549 by moving to “close” the church and then sell it to the congregation. An additional 100 churches or more are reportedly currently engaged in this process.
The South Central Jurisdiction had 32 percent of its churches disaffiliate. The jurisdictional numbers were heavily influenced by high levels of disaffiliation in some of the Texas conferences. The conferences most affected were:
- Northwest Texas – 82 percent disaffiliated
- Texas – 51 percent
- Central Texas – 45 percent
- Louisiana – 38 percent
The rest of the South Central annual conferences experienced percentages much closer to the denominational average of 26 percent. The three Texas conferences above facilitated disaffiliation by absorbing the cost of the pension liability and, in Northwest Texas, absorbing even the cost of the two years’ apportionments. So churches in those conferences were able to disaffiliate at a minimal cost.
The North Central Jurisdiction had 22 percent of its churches disaffiliate. The conferences most affected were:
- East Ohio – 38 percent disaffiliated
- West Ohio – 34 percent
- Indiana – 31 percent
Northern Illinois made it very difficult for churches to disaffiliate and had only 2 percent do so. Illinois Great Rivers imposed additional costs for disaffiliation and had only 10 percent of their congregations do so in a conference that tends to be more conservative. Minnesota had 7 percent and Wisconsin 10 percent disaffiliate. The rest of the conferences were near the average.
The Northeast Jurisdiction had only 12 percent of its churches disaffiliate. Seven of the ten Northeastern annual conferences imposed additional costs or otherwise discouraged disaffiliation. Six annual conferences therefore experienced less than 5 percent of their churches disaffiliating. Two of those conferences are currently in lawsuits filed by churches unable to disaffiliate who wanted to do so. The only outlier was Western Pennsylvania, which had 38 percent of its churches disaffiliate.
The Western Jurisdiction had only 6 percent of its churches disaffiliate. Four of the seven annual conferences imposed additional costs or otherwise discouraged disaffiliation. One of the conferences is in a lawsuit with churches unable to afford the imposed 50 percent payment of property value in order to disaffiliate.
Who Is in the GMC?
Weems’ report mentions that fewer than half of the churches that disaffiliated have joined the Global Methodist Church (GMC). That was based on the information he had at the time, but churches are joining the GMC each week, so that number is increasing. At the time of this writing, there were approximately 4,100 churches in the GMC, of which about 3,850 are in the U.S. Therefore, at this point about half of the U.S. churches that disaffiliated have joined the GMC. Many are still in the process of discernment, while paying off the debt incurred for departure fees. Others are waiting to see how the denomination develops in light of its inaugural General Conference scheduled for September of this year.
One can see from this that joining a denomination was not a high priority for many disaffiliated churches. It is sad that their experience with the UM Church was such as to make them reluctant to join another denomination after disaffiliation. It may be that some churches would just rather be independent, but it may also be that a number of churches are suffering from post-denominational trauma and need healing before considering aligning with another denomination. Eventually, many of these wounded churches will see the value of being part of something bigger than themselves and seek out an alignment that fits their ministry passion.
One should also acknowledge that several dozen disaffiliated churches have joined other denominations, such as the Free Methodist or Wesleyan Churches. Some have formed their own independent networks. The percentage of non-aligned churches may be less than it appears, and it will shrink over time.
Reasons for the difference in disaffiliation
As pointed out above, some annual conferences made it much easier to disaffiliate, while other annual conferences made it more difficult. Conferences that followed a straight Par. 2553 process without additional costs experienced an average 28 percent disaffiliation rate. Conferences that imposed additional costs or made the process more difficult experienced an average 13 percent disaffiliation rate.
Conferences in the North and West that had a low disaffiliation percentage also have a history of more liberal/progressive policies. This was exhibited in resolutions on social issues, as well as a bias against admitting theologically conservative clergy and such clergy receiving less prestigious appointments. More traditionalist clergy and members have left the UM Church in those conferences down through the years prior to 2019, so there were not as many traditionalists left to disaffiliate.
Conferences in the South have had a more traditionalist theological milieu and retained many more of their traditionalist clergy and members prior to disaffiliation. There were thus more traditionalists to disaffiliate. The same was true in Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana, which were the heart of the Evangelical United Brethren Church. Those areas also retained a more traditionalist theological milieu and thus experienced a higher level of disaffiliations.
Weems wonders whether congregations in the South and Midwest did not fully embrace the unifications that took place in 1939 and 1968. While that may be a factor, it seems like the passage of time would mitigate that effect. It appears just as likely that the theological climate of the prior denominations carried over into the United Methodist denomination following merger, which then influenced the different directions these churches took.
Why more ethnic congregations did not disaffiliate
According to Weems’ research, ten percent of all UM congregations were majority people of color prior to disaffiliation, yet only three percent of disaffiliating churches were majority people of color.
The issue of race within United Methodism has always been a complex and sensitive issue to calculate, since the denomination is overwhelmingly populated by white congregations. In addition to United Methodism, our sister denominations – African Methodist Episcopal Zion, Christian Methodist Episcopal, and African Methodist Episcopal – have primarily African American membership.
Speaking in generalities, African American churches (70 percent of all ethnic UM churches) tend to be more conservative theologically, but more liberal politically. They face the dilemma of being a unique element in either a denomination that may be perceived to be more liberal both politically and theologically or a denomination that may be perceived to be more conservative both politically and theologically.
There is an understandable history of mistrust of white churches in the South – and perhaps other parts of the country – that participated in racial segregation in the past. There is also a well-established and laudable support system in the UM Church for black clergy, which would have to be built from scratch in a new denomination. These are only some of the unique factors that would accompany a discussion of disaffiliation.
In addition to cultural factors (and perhaps language considerations), there are some Hispanic congregations that are dependent upon support from the annual conference and/or meet in other UM congregations’ facilities. That makes disaffiliation more challenging. Furthermore, many Hispanic pastors are licensed local pastors and thus more vulnerable to being let go from their positions by bishops and committees on ordained ministry that are hostile to disaffiliation. Once again, their process of disaffiliation could face unique challenges.
Similarities in size
When disaffiliations were first ramping up in 2022, the word from some institutionalists was that most of the disaffiliating churches were small churches, and that the large churches were not disaffiliating. Weems’ research shows that not to be true.
According to Weems, similar proportions of churches disaffiliated at all size levels of worship attendance. In the UM Church, six percent of all churches averaged over 250 in worship attendance. Five percent of disaffiliating churches averaged over 250. In the UM Church, 13 percent averaged between 100 and 250 in worship attendance, while 12 percent of disaffiliating churches did so. In the UM Church, 82 percent of all churches averaged less than 100 in worship, while 83 percent of disaffiliating churches did.
Disaffiliating churches almost perfectly matched the size profile of the denomination as a whole.
As Weems writes, “Researchers have much with which to work in answering the many questions raised by the experience of the United Methodist Church from 2019 through 2023. If past divisions are predictive, there will be a host of partisan narratives. What will be most needed are objective scholars who can go beyond statistical data to representative surveys and qualitative research to answer some [additional] questions.”
While the ideas and explanations proposed above may seem partisan to some, they resonate with the statistics and with personal experience. Further research may bear them out or find different answers.
There is no question that a cataclysmic change has affected American Methodism and may yet heavily impact Methodism in other parts of the world. Aside from the statistical and sociological explanations for what has taken place, it would be wise not to ignore the spiritual aspects, as well. In many disaffiliating congregations, there was a clear sense of God’s leading and a desire to be faithful to non-negotiable theological perspectives. Many church members would have prioritized the spiritual factors leading to separation over the more pragmatic ones, and the spiritual factors will not necessarily show up in a statistical analysis. It is these spiritual aspects that will give unity and purpose to the Global Methodist Church, the UM Church, and to other entities arising out of this traumatic separation event.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Photo: Shutterstock.
by Steve | Feb 9, 2024 | Front Page News, In the News, Perspective / News
Extending Disaffiliation Options
By Thomas Lambrecht
The main agenda items for the Renewal and Reform Coalition at the 2024 General Conference meeting in Charlotte, NC, April 23-May 3 relate to providing new disaffiliation pathways for churches and annual conferences that have not been offered a fair opportunity to disaffiliate so far. This will be an uphill battle. United Methodist bishops and other leaders want to turn the page on disaffiliation and put it behind them. UM leaders are aghast at the high number of congregations that have disaffiliated in the U.S., particularly in the South and Midwest. They do not want to lose any more.
So, the UM establishment is putting on a full-court press to prevent any more disaffiliation pathways from being enacted at the 2024 General Conference. It is important to understand why these pathways are needed and what the two pathways submitted by African delegates are designed to accomplish.
Why New Disaffiliation Pathways?
United Methodists outside the U.S. have not been allowed to consider disaffiliation under the Par. 2553 pathway provided by the 2019 General Conference. This arbitrary decision by bishops without obtaining a ruling from the Judicial Council has disenfranchised the majority of the church that lives outside the U.S.
Some congregations and one annual conference outside the U.S. have been able to disaffiliate. They did so either by ignoring the requirements of the Discipline or by a negotiated pathway with their particular central conference. Such a negotiated pathway is not realistically available in all the central conferences, and it is never a good idea to foster ignoring of the church’s Discipline.
The Judicial Council has ruled that annual conferences may not disaffiliate unless the General Conference provides a process for them to do so. Several annual conferences in Africa or elsewhere may desire to disaffiliate. Therefore, it is necessary for the General Conference to provide a way for annual conferences to do so.
In the U.S., nearly a dozen annual conferences (out of 53) imposed extra financial and other costs on churches desiring to disaffiliate. These costs ranged up to 50 percent of the congregation’s property value, additional financial fees, and in some cases an outright ban on traditional congregations disaffiliating. Whereas, denomination-wide about 26 percent of congregations disaffiliated, in these conferences requiring extra costs only about 13 percent of congregations disaffiliated. And in the most extreme examples, less than five percent of congregations disaffiliated because the cost for doing so was nearly impossible for most churches.
At least two bishops and several district superintendents that we know of lobbied their churches not to disaffiliate in 2023. They said that the General Conference had not yet met, and that one could not be certain what actions it would take. They assured their congregations there would be a way to disaffiliate after the 2024 General Conference, if it took actions they disagreed with. In order to make good on those promises, the General Conference needs to enact a disaffiliation pathway for local churches that want to respond to the likelihood that the 2024 Conference will allow same-sex weddings, the ordination of non-celibate LGBT persons, and repeal the Traditional Plan.
Simple fairness and justice demand that the General Conference provide a realistic disaffiliation option for those outside the U.S., as well as those few congregations in the U.S., that have not had that realistic opportunity.
Annual Conference Disaffiliation
Right now, there is in the Discipline a way for an annual conference outside the U.S. to become an autonomous Methodist Church (Par. 572). It requires that the conference write its own new Book of Discipline and obtain approval from the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, from the central conference in which the annual conference is located, from two-thirds of all the other annual conference members in that central conference, and from the General Conference. Due to the lengthy process and all the approvals required, the process can take years and is not certain to succeed.
In addition, the process requires the annual conference to become autonomous. But those annual conferences that might seek disaffiliation in response to General Conference action desire to join another Wesleyan denomination, not become autonomous. They should not be forced to go through the process of becoming autonomous in order to move to another denomination.
The Renewal and Reform Coalition is supporting a proposed new Par. 576 that would allow an annual conference outside the U.S. to transfer to another Wesleyan denomination. They could adopt the Discipline of that other denomination, rather than having to write their own. It would require only a two-thirds vote by the disaffiliating annual conference and the majority approval of its central conference. Local churches and clergy in that annual conference desiring to remain United Methodist could do so, with provision made by the central conference for a continuing UM presence where desired.
This much shorter and less laborious process would allow annual conferences outside the U.S. to determine where their most faithful future of ministry lies. They would not be forced to remain in a denomination that has changed its teachings in ways they cannot support. And they would not be subject to the uncertainty of a years-long process that may or may not bring about their disaffiliation.
Local Church Disaffiliation
The Coalition is supporting a proposed new Par. 2553 to allow local churches to disaffiliate, both outside and in the U.S. It would maintain the current requirements of Par. 2553 for two years’ apportionments and payment of pension liabilities. But it would prevent annual conferences from imposing additional financial costs on the disaffiliating church. It would also clarify the timelines for churches to disaffiliate, so that annual conferences cannot impose lengthy disaffiliation processes designed to discourage disaffiliation.
This new Par. 2553 would provide a realistic possibility for local churches to disaffiliate where they have not had the opportunity to do so. It would allow local churches outside the U.S. whose annual conference does not disaffiliate to make the decision that over 7,500 local churches in the U.S. have made.
In a recent fundraising piece for “Mainstream UMC,” the Rev. Mark Holland – self-proclaimed centrist – writes, “Seriously, in this day and age, what organization stays together through coercion?” We agree. Churches should not be forced to remain United Methodist if they do not want to do so. The failure to allow non-U.S. churches to disaffiliate and the imposition of draconian costs on churches in the U.S. amounts to coercion. A coerced covenant is no real covenant at all. A coerced and unfair remainder of churches in the UM denomination is not healthy or good for a denomination that wants to move in a different direction. Hopefully, the 2024 General Conference delegates will consider fairness and provide the needed opportunities for realistic disaffiliation that have been lacking outside the U.S. and in some conferences in the U.S. Future historians and a watching world will see if they do the right thing.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Photo by Pexels.
by Steve | Feb 2, 2024 | Front Page News, In the News, Perspective / News
“Mainstream UMC” Condemns Nigerian Bishop
By Thomas Lambrecht
In a recent fundraising piece, the self-identified centrist caucus group “Mainstream UMC” condemned the United Methodist bishop of Nigeria, Bishop John Wesley Yohanna. Its principal accusation was that Bishop Yohanna made a public statement on TV in which he “lied about the African delegates who gathered recently in Tanzania, saying they support gay marriage.” It alleges he did so “in an effort to intimidate his delegates” and by doing so “putting people’s well-being at risk to support his political agenda of taking the Nigerian church out of the UMC and into the GMC.”
A recent meeting of some African General Conference delegates and other members issued a statement supporting regionalization and opposing disaffiliation for the church in Africa. Bishop Yohanna apparently made his public statement in response to reports about that meeting, reassuring the Nigerian church and public that the church in Nigeria opposes both regionalization and same-sex marriage.
Mainstream UMC leads the story by asking its readers to “please forward this email to your Bishop and demand that the Council of Bishops take immediate action against Bishop Yohanna.” This is plainly an attempt to support Mainstream UMC’s allies in Nigeria who are actively working against Bishop Yohanna’s authority as bishop (see more details below). It is also highly ironic that Mainstream UMC is attacking a traditionalist bishop in Nigeria who has not violated the Discipline, while previously defending two bishops in the Western Jurisdiction that are ineligible (according to the Book of Discipline and a Judicial Council decision) to serve as bishops due to being in same-sex marriages.
Inaccurate Allegations
Anyone who watches the TV clip of Bishop Yohanna’s statement can clearly see that Yohanna never said that the Tanzania delegates support gay marriage. In Yohanna’s words, “Some years back, some groups within the church have been advocating same-sex marriage. For some of us, this is unbiblical and also is incompatible with church teaching according to our Book of Discipline, which is the laws [sic] of the church.” He went on to state that the United Methodist Church in Nigeria says no to same-sex marriage.
It was actually the news reporters – not Bishop Yohanna – who stated that the delegates in Tanzania were supporters of same-sex marriage. We should all be able to agree that Bishop Yohanna cannot be held responsible for what they said.
Further, it should be clarified that while a previous meeting of the United Methodist Africa Forum in Johannesburg, South Africa, supported changing the definition of marriage to allow for same-sex marriage, the delegates and members meeting in Tanzania voted to retain the current definition of marriage between one man and one woman. That is an important distinction.
The only mention Yohanna made of the delegates in Tanzania was to allege that they were taught at the meeting by caucus groups supporting regionalization how to vote at the 2024 General Conference. He emphatically stated that the Nigerian United Methodist Church “says ‘no’ to regionalization.” The truth of the bishop’s statement was confirmed earlier this week when nearly 1,000 delegates at a special session of the Nigerian annual conferences unanimously voted to oppose regionalization.
There is no doubt there were presentations made by representatives of the caucus groups in Tanzania advocating for the church to adopt regionalization. According to the announced results of the meeting, those Africans present agreed with the caucus groups in favor of regionalization. Undoubtedly, the caucus groups explained that if the African delegates present wanted to support regionalization, there were certain petitions they would need to support. That is a legitimate lobbying activity.
But it is important to note that not all those present were General Conference delegates, nor did the delegates present represent a majority of all African General Conference delegates. One cannot therefore take the Tanzania statement as representative of all African delegates. It is certainly the prerogative of the Nigerian bishop to argue publicly against regionalization as a counter to that meeting.
Certainly, nothing that Bishop Yohanna stated was of a nature to “put people’s well-being at risk.” He did not name personally any of the delegates who attended the Tanzania meeting. He did not call for any form of action or retribution against those delegates. Mainstream UMC’s urgent tone and strident call for Council of Bishops action against Bishop Yohanna is an uncalled for attempt to undermine the bishop, his ministry, and his authority.
Other False Allegations
The Mainstream UMC fundraiser also alleges that the Rev. Keith Boyette, president of the Global Methodist Church, is portrayed in video footage during the newscast because he was in Nigeria to “actively work with Bishop Yohanna for the church in Nigeria to leave the UMC.” The news footage was actually taken during the recent centennial celebration of United Methodism in Nigeria – a full month prior to the meeting in Tanzania. This was Boyette’s first and only trip to Nigeria, and he was there as an invited guest to help celebrate the centennial, along with many United Methodist officials, political dignitaries, and representatives of other denominations. He was not there to lobby the Nigerian church to join the GMC.
Long ago, Bishop Yohanna made it clear that, if the Book of Discipline changed to allow same-sex marriage and the ordination of non-celibate LGBT persons, he would withdraw from the UM Church, and he believed that most of the Nigerian church would withdraw, as well. It did not take Boyette’s presence at a centennial celebration to prompt such a course of action on Yohanna’s part.
The Mainstream UMC piece casts other aspersions on Yohanna meant to undermine him.
It refers to the fact that Bishop Yohanna’s election was challenged in 2012 by some Nigerians before the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council declined to rule because no official body of the church had requested a declaratory decision. The Council of Bishops argued in its brief that “John Wesley Yohanna was ‘validly nominated and elected as a bishop of the West Africa Central Conference.’” Yohanna was elected unanimously out of three candidates by the 57 delegates who cast ballots at the central conference meeting. Thirteen delegates who believed Yohanna was improperly nominated boycotted the meeting. The Council of Bishops stated, “While the resulting boycott by 13 delegates from two annual conferences may have had some impact on the eventual vote totals distributed among the three candidates, there is nothing decisively evident that the outcome of the balloting would have changed the results of the election. Nor is there evidence that any attempt was made during the balloting process to challenge the legitimacy of the election by the West Africa Central Conference.”
The group of challengers was led by the Rev. Philip Micah Dopah, who eventually led a breakaway movement in southern Nigeria that is no longer part of The United Methodist Church, despite many efforts by Bishop Yohanna to resolve the split. One of the issues in the election was tribal identity and the unwillingness to accept a bishop of another tribe. There is no question that Bishop Yohanna was fairly nominated and fairly elected as bishop.
Mainstream UMC also alleges that Bishop Yohanna “worked with the civil authorities in 2021 in Nigeria to jail four members of his clergy.” This is not true.
From a Nigerian clergyperson, Good News received an article from WAX-FAITH Magazine that extensively quotes DSP David Misal, Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Police Public Relations Officer in Jalingo – the capital city of Taraba State in north-eastern Nigeria. In the article, Misal states the four were invited to the police station as part of an investigation into complaints that they were “instigating members of the Church against others, setting division, causing violence among members of the Church and training others to cause violence.” The four came voluntarily and peacefully for police interviews. The article states that, unfortunately, “at the arrival at the Police Headquarters they secretly took photographs of the Police Headquarters gate … and other sensitive locations within the Police Headquarters and attached it with a written complaint and forwarded it to United Methodist Council of Bishops alleging that the police is [sic] been used and paid by Bishop John Wesley Yohanna to harass and torture them.” The four were then charged with spying because taking the photographs was illegal.
According to the article, the police spokesperson stated that, “the Police Command consider the complaints of the clergymen as false misleading and a deliberate attempt to portray the image of the Police in a bad light, as such the Police were professional courteous and civil in handling the case.” The spokesperson “further debunked claims making the rounds that Bishop John Wesley Yohanna was responsible for the trial of the accused persons.”
Missing Context
It is important to note that the group raising concerns in Nigeria is led by the Rev. Ande I. Emmanuel, who was once the secretary of the conference and a trusted aide of Bishop Yohanna. Emmanuel turned against Yohanna and for the last three years has refused an appointment by the bishop. He and his group have been recruiting churches and pastors to defy Bishop Yohanna’s leadership. Those churches have refused to pay their conference apportionments and clergy have refused appointments from the bishop. Emmanuel has announced his own intention to run for bishop, if the General Conference grants an additional bishop to Nigeria, as proposed.
This group has also been holding alternative annual conference meetings with their own delegates, claiming to be the rightful United Methodist Church of Nigeria. As noted in the above article reporting from the police, the group has been accused of fomenting violence. In one incident, a gang of “thugs” invaded a conference youth event and attacked participants, inflicting injuries. Police responded and arrested twelve suspects and recovered weapons. The suspects are being prosecuted for assault.
Complaints were filed by conference leaders against Emmanuel and his group, who in turn filed complaints against Bishop Yohanna. There was a just resolution of the dueling complaints in 2023, but it is apparent that Emmanuel and his group are still not willing to accept the authority of Bishop Yohanna, in accordance with the just resolution. The fundraiser from Mainstream UMC can be seen as part of an ongoing attempt by this group to undermine Bishop Yohanna’s ministry and ruin his reputation. Readers should not accept unchallenged the inaccurate and false allegations that the Mainstream UMC piece makes against Bishop Yohanna.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Photo: Nigeria Area Bishop John Wesley Yohanna is joined by the Rev. Jolly T. Nyame, former governor of Taraba state and onetime director of connectional ministries for The United Methodist Church in Nigeria, during a commissioning service for a new emergency ward at Jalingo United Methodist Hospital in Jalingo, Nigeria. Photo by Ezekiel Ibrahim, UM News.
by Steve | Jan 26, 2024 | In the News, Perspective / News
Downsides of Regionalization
By Thomas Lambrecht
The last Perspective spoke about the unfairness of “regionalization” in its treatment of Africa and other parts of the church outside the U.S. As I wrote, “The top agenda item for the 2024 General Conference in April for most progressives is to adopt ‘regionalization’ as the new mode of United Methodist governance. This proposal would be a dramatic shift in how the UM Church functions. …”
Once again, the regionalization proposal is similar to the U.S. central conference proposal that passed General Conference in 2008 but was overwhelmingly defeated by annual conferences in 2009. It would set up the U.S. as its own regional conference, along with three regional conferences in Europe, three in Africa, and one in the Philippines.
There are other downsides to consider.
Regionalization Rationale
The rationale for regionalization is to allow each geographic region of the church to adapt specified provisions of the Discipline to fit the missional needs of its region. There is also the argument that many of the resolutions on social issues that General Conference addresses relate mainly to the United States and are not of interest to the rest of the global church. Creating a U.S. regional conference would allow the U.S. delegates to issue specific resolutions or take positions on issues that are U.S.-centric without the need for other delegates to participate in discussions that do not concern them.
On the surface, it may seem like the regionalization idea makes sense. Greater flexibility to adapt the rules of the church to meet the needs of each region could make the church’s mission more effective. It seems that the Discipline has moved in the direction of micro-managing the life and work of the church over the past 20 years, not just in the area of sexual morality, but in many other ways, as well. Do we really need 850 pages of rules to run the church by?
One approach to this problem would be to make the rules in the Discipline more general and flexible, so that different cultural contexts could function equally well within the same framework without needing to adapt any of the provisions. This is the approach taken by the new Global Methodist Church Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline.
The other approach is to have a general Book of Discipline that governs some of the functions of the church, while then allowing each region to pass its own Discipline to govern the functions of the church in that region. However, there are some philosophical problems with that approach, as well as some practical problems.
Weakening the Connection
Methodism has always understood itself to be governed by a unique form of polity called “connectionalism.” It started with John Wesley, Methodism’s founder, who oversaw the growing Methodist movement through all the preachers who were “in connection” with him. There was the emphasis on personal relationship, along with accountability, as the preachers met annually to determine “what to teach, how to teach, and what to do.” Decisions were made corporately (although heavily influenced by Wesley during his lifetime) and governed the actions of all the Methodist societies in connection with Wesley.
Following the regionalization approach runs the risk of beginning to undo the connection that binds all United Methodists together. Wesley identified that Methodists share a common doctrine, a common discipline, and a common spirit that binds us together. Theoretically, visiting a Methodist church anywhere one would find the same doctrines being preached, and same method of operating as a church, and the same spirit bringing unity to the body.
Importantly, the regionalization proposal keeps doctrine and the Social Principles as part of the general Discipline that applies to all United Methodists. However, the proposal also opens the various regions to have different levels of accountability for our common doctrine, codifying what exists today in a rather lax approach toward doctrinal accountability in some parts of the church.
Other aspects of the church’s life and ministry that really are of significance for our connection are also given adaptability. This includes clergy standards, qualifications for lay membership and leadership, and worship rituals. When these connectional items begin diverging from one region to another, it weakens the connection we have as United Methodists. Important areas of church life that were once decided by General Conference for all United Methodists would now be decided differently for each region of the church.
The ultimate end of such a process of disconnection could be that United Methodism becomes an association of regional or national churches, each one different from the other and having its own way of doing church. We could end up as more of a communion than a denomination. It could be similar to the Anglican Communion that has an Anglican denomination in each country overseen by an archbishop, but where the various national churches function quite differently from each other and have different standards, rules, and even beliefs.
Practical Challenges
Some of the practical consequences of regionalization could include:
-
- Clergy may not be able to easily transfer from one region to another if the qualifications and standards for ordination are different. Currently there are many African clergy serving in the U.S. That ability might be limited in the future if the qualifications for being ordained in an African conference differ significantly from those in the U.S.
-
- Local church membership could mean different things in different regions. Some regions could require extensive probationary periods before becoming a member and exhibit strict accountability to behavior standards for members, compared to other regions that have a “y’all come” approach to membership.
-
- Each region would have its own accountability process. We have seen, especially in Africa, how the current accountability process is not being followed properly. A few bishops are excommunicating lay members and defrocking clergy without any due process, completely contrary to the Discipline. If the accountability process (including investigations and trials) is removed from the general Discipline, one can imagine how the rule of law would go out the window in certain areas and bishops would become dictators, to the detriment of the church’s life and ministry.
-
- The current practice of holding bishops accountable only within their region has not worked. Regionalization would codify that practice and make it even more difficult to ensure that bishops behave with integrity, respecting due process and the rights of clergy.
-
- With the ability to have different chargeable offenses in different regions, clergy will be held accountable to different standards. What is not allowed in one region could be perfectly legal in another. These unequal standards not only create inconsistency as to what is expected of clergy across the church, but they could occasion resentment between clergy of different regions who are treated differently. Again, it undermines the connection.
-
- United Methodist bishops are bishops of the whole church, not just their episcopal area. But opening the legal possibility of having openly gay bishops means they could participate in meetings and events in countries where homosexuality is against the law. Will bishops be redefined as only regional bishops, able to serve only within their region? Regionalization raises problems with having a general episcopacy.
Inconsistent Identity
What does it mean to be United Methodist? Already, there is confusion and inconsistency between different local churches who claim the same name but teach a different theology and practice Methodism differently. Regionalization will only accelerate the inconsistency of identity. The United Methodist “brand” will suffer a loss of identity.
For traditionalists in Africa and elsewhere, the worst consequence is that they will be tagged for being part of a denomination that performs same-sex weddings and has openly gay clergy and bishops, even if that does not happen in their particular region. This poses a grave threat to the mission of the church where the practice of homosexuality is illegal or where the church is under pressure from a militant Islam seeking to discredit Christianity. What affects United Methodist identity in one region affects that identity in all regions. And each region affected is powerless to change that reality.
Regionalization sounds good until one begins to unpack the intended and unintended consequences. At the very least, it would mark a dramatic shift in how The United Methodist Church functions as a denomination. It is being done at the behest of promoting LGBTQ equality and cementing control by the American part of the church of its own affairs. Delegates should think long and hard before taking such a drastic step.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Photo: Shutterstock.
by Steve | Jan 19, 2024 | In the News, Perspective / News
Regionalization: the New Colonialism?
By Thomas Lambrecht
The top agenda item for the 2024 General Conference in April for most progressives is to adopt “regionalization” as the new mode of United Methodist governance. This proposal would be a dramatic shift in how the UM Church functions. It would move from being a connectional church to a regional church, or even an association of national churches.
The regionalization proposal is similar to the U.S. central conference proposal that passed General Conference in 2008 but was overwhelmingly defeated by annual conferences in 2009. It would set up the U.S. as its own regional conference, along with three regional conferences in Europe, three in Africa, and one in the Philippines.
The key is that each regional conference would have the authority to create its own policies and standards in a number of key areas. These include:
- Qualifications and educational requirements for clergy – so there could be different qualifications to be ordained as a clergyperson in each regional conference.
- Standards and qualifications for lay membership – so the standards for being a lay member of a local church could be different from region to region.
- Rules of procedure governing investigations and trials of clergy and lay members – how clergy and lay members are held accountable could differ from region to region.
- Changes in chargeable offenses and their penalties – what is a chargeable offense in one region could be perfectly allowed in another.
- Each region could have its own hymnal and worship rituals. It is unclear from the proposals whether each region could have different baptismal and membership vows or ordination vows.
Why Regionalization?
This type of regionalization is a relatively recent development. In 2012, the General Conference began to move toward allowing central conferences outside the U.S. greater flexibility in adapting the Book of Discipline to their particular context. However, this was not finalized in 2016, but only in process until 2020 (which was of course postponed by the pandemic).
The original concept of adaptability for the Discipline was meant to allow for different laws and property procedures in different countries outside the U.S. But the expansion to other areas of adaptability was (I believe) a precursor to justifying greater adaptability for the U.S. church. If the central conferences outside the U.S. had the ability to adapt the Discipline in the ways listed above, one could hardly deny the U.S. church the same ability to adapt the Discipline. Never mind that the majority of General Conference delegates has always been from the U.S. and the Discipline has always been written primarily from a U.S. context, meaning that such adaptation was hardly necessary.
The real reason for regionalization and adaptability is to allow the U.S. church to liberalize its standards regarding marriage and LGBT persons. Each of the bullet points above has a direct relationship to LGBT persons. Adapting the qualifications for ordination would allow the U.S. church to ordain non-celibate LGBT persons. Adapting the qualifications for lay membership would allow the U.S. church to forbid pastors from preventing non-celibate LGBT persons to become local church members and serve in leadership in the local church, district, and annual conference. Adapting the rules of procedure for holding clergy and lay members accountable would allow the U.S. church to prevent trials for LGBT clergy or for clergy performing same-sex weddings. Adapting the chargeable offenses would allow the U.S. church to remove from the list of chargeable offenses anything related to same-sex marriage and non-celibate LGBT persons serving as clergy. Adapting the hymnal and the rituals would allow the U.S. church to create liturgies for same-sex weddings and potentially alter the ordination vows to mandate support for LGBT persons.
In the wake of the 2019 General Conference’s affirmation of a traditional perspective on marriage and human sexuality, progressives have rebelled. They decided to move ahead with same-sex weddings and the ordination of non-celibate LGBT persons regardless of what the Discipline said. Regionalization would give them the legal ability to do so within the Discipline by codifying different standards and policies for the U.S. church than those adopted in Africa and other regions.
This is the goal of regionalization, as articulated in a recent Mainstream UMC fundraising letter. “Homosexuality is the flashpoint in this conversation. A US-only vote likely would have permitted LGBTQ ordination and marriage as many as 12 years ago, just like the US Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Disciples have done. … The mean-spirited Traditional Plan of 2019 – which doubles down on the harm – has proven to be the tipping point in the United States. Either this policy is completely repealed at General Conference 2024, along with the other anti-LGBTQ language, or the exodus continues, and likely accelerates, in the United States.” (The letter is referring to an exodus of progressives and LGBT persons, which Mainstream UMC blames for the decline in UM membership over the past 40 years. Never mind that, while LGBT-affirming mainline denominations have all declined precipitously, non-denominational evangelical churches and Pentecostal denominations with a traditional understanding of marriage and human sexuality have grown.)
What about colonialism?
It is unquestionably true that UM governance has always had a U.S.-centric approach. Particularly in the realm of social issues and resolutions on particular justice issues, the focus was predominantly on the U.S., although that had begun to change by 2016 with greater attention and sensitivity to global issues and how resolutions could be worded to be more inclusive of global concerns.
The question is whether to solve the problem of U.S. centrism by decoupling the connection through allowing wholesale adaptability of the Discipline, or by allowing greater input from non-U.S. delegates to the forming of a global Discipline. Most progressives and the church’s “establishment” chose the route of adaptability, first through the defeated U.S. central conference plan and then through initiating changes in the Discipline in 2012. Traditionalists have consistently favored the second approach of moving toward a more globally inclusive Discipline. That was the stark contrast between the One Church Plan in 2019 that would have allowed maximum adaptability, and the Traditional Plan that maintained a global standard.
But in its quest to rid the denomination of its U.S. centrism and colonial undertones, does the new regionalization proposal codify a new form of colonialism? Some African leaders have said yes. A closer analysis of the proposal shows they are right.
Curious Timing
It is interesting that the big push for regionalization comes just as the U.S. church membership has moved into a minority status. Even before disaffiliations began, membership outside the U.S. had pulled even with U.S. membership. This was not reflected in the percentage of delegates at General Conference, particularly for Africa, as the formula for delegates favors the U.S. with its very large number of retired clergy and clergy serving in extension ministry.
Even as African membership was increasing by 10 to 20 percent per quadrennium, their delegate percentage would only increase by less than five percentage points. It was going to be at least a decade or more before African delegate percentage more accurately reflected their percentage of membership. That, of course, changed with disaffiliation, which has drastically cut U.S. lay and clergy membership.
But Mainstream UMC is panicking over the fact that U.S. delegates will soon be in the minority. “In 2012, … international delegates totaled nearly 1/3 of the votes. For General Conference 2024, the delegates from outside the US will be close to 45 percent. In four years, it will be almost 55 percent.”
In other words, just when non-U.S. delegates are poised to have a significant voice in denominational governance, progressives want to marginalize them through regionalization. No matter what the non-U.S. delegates believe, the U.S. delegates that are a majority progressive can do what they want. Non-U.S. delegates will no longer be able to “interfere” with what the U.S. delegates want. In another fundraising letter, Mainstream UMC says, “There is a growing sentiment in the US that we will not fund a church that constrains our outreach to our local mission field. Period.”
No Override Option
The current regionalization proposal has no provision for the General Conference to override the decision of a regional conference. If a regional conference enacts something that is contrary to UM governance, the only recourse is to file an objection with the Judicial Council, which is difficult to do and made more difficult by the regionalization plan itself. Another region may not have standing to bring an action before the Judicial Council under the new regime of regionalization.
A previous version of the regionalization proposal allowed a regional action to be overturned by a two-thirds vote of the General Conference. Of course, the U.S. would have more than one-third of the votes, so its actions would not be overturned. But Europe, the Philippines, and the three African regions would each have less than one-third of the votes, so their actions could be overridden, while the U.S. would not.
Other Favorable U.S. Treatment
There are other ways in which the U.S. gets favorable treatment under the current proposal. Other regions could set the tenure of their bishops, but the U.S. bishops would be guaranteed life tenure by the Constitution.
The Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters would continue with its current 30 to 40 percent U.S. representation. But the U.S. regional conference would have only 14 non-U.S. delegates, making up only 3 percent of the conference. Thus, the U.S. would have a bigger say in non-U.S. matters than non-U.S. delegates would have for U.S. matters.
The General Conference could change the boundaries of non-U.S. regional conferences without the consent of its annual conferences but changing the boundaries of jurisdictions in the U.S. would still require annual conference consent. Again, U.S. conferences would have more say in their affairs than non-U.S. conferences in theirs.
It is no wonder that some African leaders and delegates are opposing the regionalization proposal. In an effort to ostensibly remove colonialism from UM governance, regionalization as currently proposed installs new, discriminatory provisions that reinforce U.S. autonomy and superiority. One must ask whether the UM Church is exchanging one form of colonialism for another. It is enough to cause second thoughts on whether this is the direction the UM Church should take going forward. Time will tell how the General Conference delegates and annual conference members evaluate this proposal.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and vice president of Good News. Image: Shutterstock.
by Steve | Jan 12, 2024 | In the News, Perspective / News
Start Off 2024 with an Act of Rebellion
By David F. Watson
There’s nothing more central to the postmodern Western mind than radical autonomy. Put more simply, we can express the common mindset of our age as something like, “I’ll do what I want and be who I want. I’ll live as I want and die as I want. I am my own master, and none will master me.”
Whether we’re talking about gun laws, abortion, gender identity, sexual expression, or “medical aid in dying” (assisted suicide), our default conviction is, “My will be done.”
We don’t normally perceive this mentality any more than fish perceive the water in which they swim, but it guides our thoughts, words, and deeds. Our minds are neatly conformed to the patterns of this age.
Orthodox Christianity offers us a remarkably different vision of the self. The NRSV renders Romans 12:2, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect.” The phrase “to this world” in this passage is more accurately translated “to this age” (Greek: aión).
The current age misshapes our minds. We’re like out-of-tune instruments. In order to discern what is good and acceptable and perfect – about ourselves, other people, and God – we must be transformed. It is necessary for God to renew our minds by the power of the Holy Spirit. As God does this necessary work, we see the world with increasing clarity. The scales come off of our eyes. The Holy Spirit heals the corrupting influence of sin on our minds, and the ways in which we were conformed to the present age become ever more apparent.
If my students or former students are reading this right now, they’re probably rolling their eyes. I’m like a broken record on the epistemic consequences of sin, also called the noetic effect of sin. These are just ten-dollar phrases which mean that sin warps the way we think. The patterns of this age are distorted by sin, and we soak in this distortion by osmosis from the time we’re born. (Yes, I know I talk about this too much but it’s important, okay? No, I’m not defensive. Why do you ask?)
I’m a Wesleyan. Nothing against Calvinism. It’s just not my jam. Being a Wesleyan, I believe we can resist the effects of God’s grace in our lives. What is crucial if we wish for God to renew our minds is a posture of openness to the transforming love of God. That means we give up our commitment to self-will and offer ourselves in joyful obedience to God’s will.
Wesley’s covenant prayer is a great way to enter a posture of openness and obedience to God. I recommend praying this prayer not just at the beginning of the year, but throughout the year. It is a beautiful expression of obedience and devotion to the God who saves us.
I am no longer my own, but thine.
Put me to what thou wilt, rank me with whom thou wilt.
Put me to doing, put me to suffering.
Let me be employed for thee or laid aside for thee,
exalted for thee or brought low for thee.
Let me be full, let me be empty.
Let me have all things, let me have nothing.
I freely and heartily yield all things to thy pleasure and disposal.
And now, O glorious and blessed God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, thou art mine, and I am thine.
So be it.
And the covenant which I have made on earth, let it be ratified in heaven.
Amen.
Seedbed also offers a contemporary rendering of John Wesley’s Covenant Renewal Service, which would be great to use in small groups or Sunday morning worship.
Begin this year with an act of rebellion against the patterns of this age. Begin to know yourself as God knows you. Yield to God. Make yourself fully available to receive his transforming power. We Christians are no longer our own. We are God’s. To live out this truth may be treasonous to the spirit of this age, but then, as Jesus said, no one can serve two masters.
David F. Watson serves as Academic Dean and Associate Professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. He holds a Ph.D. from Southern Methodist University, and is an ordained elder in the Global Methodist Church. Dr. Watson is also the lead editor of Firebrand. This editorial is reprinted from his Substack column found here. Duccio di Buoninsegna was an Italian painter in the late 13th and early 14th century. His Pentecost painting is found at The Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, an art museum in Siena, in Tuscany in central Italy. Public domain artwork.
